extract_faqs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the extraction strategies (JSON-LD, native disclosure elements, CSS heuristics) so the agent knows it works without selectors. However, it never says whether passing a URL triggers a network fetch, what happens when no FAQ markup is found, or whether both args can be supplied at once.

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 body is compact and front-loaded: capability first, mechanisms second, arguments last. The marketing-style header 'Zero-Selector FAQ & Accordion Intelligence Extractor' is minor padding, but nothing substantive is wasted.

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 need not be described, and the extraction-method detail covers the core behavior. Still, for a dual-input extractor with zero annotation coverage, the missing url-vs-html_text interaction and failure-mode behavior are meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but the Args section largely restates the property names ('url: The webpage URL to extract FAQs from'). It omits that both parameters default to empty and are optional, and crucially does not explain precedence or fallback between url and html_text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Extracts structured question-and-answer pairs') and even names the mechanisms used (JSON-LD FAQPage, <details>/<summary>, accordion CSS heuristics), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like extract_schema or extract_structured, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool (extract_schema, extract_structured, scrape_url) is named as an alternative for general schema or structured-data extraction. The 'Zero-Selector' phrasing hints at a differentiator, but the agent must infer that this tool beats a plain scraper only when FAQ markup is suspected.

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