extract_scraped_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It says it returns a formatted JSON string, but it does not clarify whether the input must match an exact provider name, whether the domain lookup is fuzzy or exact, whether it fails for unscraped sites, or the shape of the returned JSON. These are relevant behavioral gaps.

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 compact and includes an Args/Returns structure that is easy to scan. It is efficient, though the Returns line is a bit generic and could be shortened without losing value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema confirming a formatted JSON return, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship to the sibling scrape_websites, nor failure behavior when the identifier is not found, and it lacks any operational context like whether this is a lookup-only operation. These are moderate gaps for an otherwise simple tool.

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 define the identifier parameter. It defines it as 'The provider name, full URL, or domain to look for', which gives some semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, but it leaves ambiguity about matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matches, supported URL formats). It adds value but not enough to fully compensate for zero schema coverage.

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 says it extracts information about a scraped website, which is a clear verb plus resource, and it is distinguishable from its sibling scrape_websites because that tool presumably performs the scraping while this one extracts already-scraped info. It lacks explicit scope detail (what 'information' means), but the core purpose is understandable.

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 this is for retrieving information from previously scraped websites, and the sibling name scrape_websites hints at the alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the intended workflow, but the distinction from scrape_websites is not stated.

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