extract_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the record shape, which duplicates the existing output schema, and says nothing about what happens at the max_rows/max_tables caps (truncation, flags, partial results).

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?

It is a single punchy line with the output shape front-loaded and no filler. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification — it reads as a schema fragment rather than a sentence that helps an agent decide to call it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, but two undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and zero usage context leave real gaps. For an extraction tool that paginates/limits results by default, the definition should say what the limits do.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: max_rows and max_tables are never mentioned, nor are their defaults (50, 10) or whether exceeding them truncates or errors. The only implicit link is 'rows' hinting at row-level output.

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 phrase 'HTML tables as JSON' states a concrete transform (table extraction to structured output) and the bracketed shape [{caption, headers, rows}] confirms what the tool produces. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like extract_structured or get_html, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over extract_structured, get_html, or find_in_page. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a page must be loaded/navigated first) and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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