extract_page_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the extraction strategy (DOM-first, escalating to headless browser then MiniMax vision) and explains the use_vision_if_needed parameter. However, it omits potential side effects like page interaction limits or failure modes.

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 concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and extraction strategy. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, 5 parameters with nested objects, the description covers extraction strategy and use cases. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or limitations, which are important for complete 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 coverage is 60% (only 3 of 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no information for viewport and wait_until, leaving them undocumented. It does provide a schema example for the 'schema' parameter and clarifies use_vision_if_needed.

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 extracts structured data from a webpage matching a schema, and lists specific use cases like pricing tiers, product info, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on structured extraction vs. image/visual analysis.

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 usage scenarios (pricing tiers, etc.) but does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. The 'DOM-first' strategy offers some guidance but no direct comparison to siblings.

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