extract_page_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it establishes that the tool performs a fetch and returns extracted text, suggesting a read operation. It does not disclose potential side effects like network calls and rate limits, or behavior such as truncation via max_length and errors on non-HTML pages, so transparency is only partially adequate.

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional modifier at the end. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 3-parameter read tool the description covers the core flow, but it omits what `max_length` actually limits and does not mention error behavior or output format. Since there is no output schema or annotations, these gaps make the definition only minimally complete.

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 only 33%, and the tool description adds little beyond it: it echoes the selector scoping and frames `url` as the page to fetch, but leaves `max_length` semantically unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema gaps for two of the three parameters.

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 gives a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('a web page'), and names the output ('readable text') plus an optional CSS selector scope. It clearly points to extracting page text rather than structured data or DOM structure, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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 described behavior implies the main use case—reading text from a page, optionally focused via selector—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over extract_data_from_url, inspect_page_structure, discover_selectors, or probe_selectors. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative routing, so the agent must infer placement.

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