extract_url_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it returns clean text with less noise than the original page. However, it does not mention network effects, failure modes, accessibility limitations, or what happens when following internal links, leaving notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, stating the main action before the usage boundary. Every sentence earns its place, though the cryptic 'CPQO' reference costs some clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a simple input schema and no output schema, the description gives enough orientation to attempt a call. However, it leaves return format and failure behavior to inference, and the boundary with search siblings is only partially explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the URL and depth parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: extracting clean text from a URL. It also differentiates the tool from search by framing it as a way to bring specific evidence. The unexplained acronym 'CPQO' slightly muddies the distinction, but the core purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('sirve para traer evidencia puntual') and when not to ('No reemplaza CPQO en search'). It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but it clearly delimits this tool as targeted evidence-gathering rather than general search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.