getapi_scraping_email

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb and path. For a scraping operation there is no mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, target-page fetchability, or what happens on unreachable/invalid URLs.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The only content beyond the tool name is a method/path bracket that duplicates machine-readable metadata rather than helping selection.

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?

A nested-object, single-required-parameter scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema needs substantial description, and it receives none. Nothing tells the agent what the call returns or how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the single nested body.url parameter. The schema only says it is a bare string, so the agent gets no guidance on whether it expects a full page URL, domain, or something else.

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 names the resource action ('E-mail Address Extractor') and exposes the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/scraping/email), which hints that scraping is involved. However, it never says what is extracted from where, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling e-mail tools (validation_email, validation_email_batch, validation_email_disposable), so the agent cannot tell scraping from validation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling e-mail validators, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The bracketed endpoint is not usage guidance.

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