get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the extraction action and does not mention read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or what occurs when no metadata exists. This is a notable gap for a tool that might interact with remote pages.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and front-loads the action and resource.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with 2 parameters and an output schema, so return values are likely covered. However, the absence of parameter documentation and usage guidance makes the description barely adequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in the right context.

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 information about the parameters. The 'url' parameter's purpose is inferred from the tool name, but 'timeout_profile' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies a clear resource ('semantic metadata') with concrete formats (JSON-LD, OpenGraph, TwitterCards). This distinguishes it from siblings like scrape_url or extract_links, which target raw HTML or structured data.

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 implies usage when semantic metadata is needed, but does not state when to avoid it or mention alternatives. There is no explicit context or exclusions, making it only minimally guiding.

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