extract_metadata

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, makes no changes, requires HAUNT_API_KEY, has a free tier with 1,000 credits/month, and returns errors on rate limit, quota, or invalid key. This is comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then return format, usage guidance, behavioral traits, and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, usage guidance, read-only behavior, authentication, and error conditions. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds meaning beyond schema by specifying it must be HTTP/HTTPS, supports permitted public pages, and returns whatever meta tags are present. Though baseline is 3 due to high coverage, the added nuance justifies a 4.

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?

Description explicitly states what the tool does: extract page metadata (title, meta description, Open Graph tags, etc.) from a URL. It clearly identifies the resource (URL) and the action (extract), and distinguishes itself from sibling extract_url by specifying when to use it. This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation.

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 guidance: 'Use this instead of extract_url when you only need metadata, it is faster and returns a consistent schema.' Also mentions API key requirement, rate limit, and credit quota, informing the agent when the tool is applicable and what constraints apply.

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