extract_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it reports microdata itemtypes in addition to JSON-LD, and surfaces JSON-LD parse errors rather than failing on malformed markup. However, it says nothing about network fetching, read-only/safe nature, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the enumerations placed in a parenthetical rather than padding the main clause. Every element earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what comes back (types, itemtypes, errors). It stops just short of complete by not clarifying whether the page is fetched live or read from an existing audit result.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('Page URL'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, scope, or fetch-behavior detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a precise verb ('Extract') and resource ('JSON-LD structured data from a page'), then enumerates the concrete outputs (schema.org @types, microdata itemtypes, parse errors). None of the siblings (audit_page, check_robots, pagespeed, etc.) touch structured data, so the agent can place it immediately.

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 audit_page or the other audit siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself, not from any routing guidance in the text.

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