extract_contacts_from_url

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the scraping action and extracted fields but omits important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid URLs), or destructive potential. The phrase 'Public demo' hints at limitations but is vague.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and outputs without waste. However, the structure could group behavioral notes or edge cases more clearly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, errors, or performance characteristics, leaving missing context for a scraping tool.

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% (single param 'url' described as 'Any public URL.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by narrowing the scope to 'public event/community/organization page' and listing extracted fields, providing meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action (scrape and extract structured contacts), the target (public event/community/organization page), and lists the extracted fields (name, title, company, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like discover_communities which focus on discovery rather than extraction.

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 implies usage for extracting contacts from public pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_communities or draft_outreach. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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