extract_scraped_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts information, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover key aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the identifier isn't found. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by brief sections for args and returns. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating usage context more naturally.

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 has an output schema (returns 'Formatted JSON string'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral traits and usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'identifier' can be a 'provider name, full URL, or domain to look for,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Extract information about a scraped website.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('scraped website'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scrape_websites' (which likely performs scraping rather than extraction), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'scrape_websites' or explain the relationship between scraping and extraction. There's no context about prerequisites, such as whether scraping must occur first, leaving usage unclear.

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