brand_extract_web

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses parsing HTML for logo candidates, confidence-scoring, and returns like colors with roles, fonts with frequency, logo preview data, and quality score. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavioral details. Three sentences without redundancy. Slightly long but still efficient for the information conveyed.

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 simple parameters (2, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description fully explains return values and extraction method. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds value beyond schema: explains that homepage works best for url, and logo_url is for fallback when automatic extraction fails. Also describes return data structure.

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 clearly states it extracts brand colors, fonts, and logo from any website URL. Specific verbs and resource are used. It distinguishes from siblings like brand_extract_site, brand_extract_figma, etc., by focusing on web extraction from live sites.

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?

Provides explicit usage triggers (e.g., 'extract brand from URL') and explains when to use logo_url parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would have made it more robust.

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