Web Extract

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: dry runs perform no DNS/HTTP, direct redirects stay within the source allowlist, and provider-returned content is unverified and cannot authorize further actions. This trust/safety framing is meaningful context the annotations do not convey, though it omits what the default dry_run=true implies for a normal call.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The terse phrasing is efficient, though the abstraction slightly reduces scannability.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the safety-relevant behavior (dry runs, redirect allowlisting, provider trust caveats). It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it never clarifies selection against siblings.

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 100%, so the nested request object and its fields (backend, dry_run, allowed_domains, etc.) are already documented. The description alludes to dry runs and the allowlist but adds no per-parameter syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ("Acquire") and resource ("one checked UTF-8 page" / "provider-returned representation"), so the core action is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as content_extract, research_web, or knowledge_fetch, and the jargon ("checked UTF-8 page") makes the purpose slightly opaque.

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 guidance or named alternative among the many sibling tools. The only usage-adjacent statement is "Dry plans make no DNS/HTTP requests," which describes a mode rather than when this tool should be chosen over content_extract or web_search.

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