extract

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

Discloses cost ($0.010/call) and wallet requirement, which is important for agent decision-making. Also flags untrusted content. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it covers key behavioral aspects but omits error handling 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?

Two sentences with additional cost and trust notes. Information is front-loaded (cost, purpose, output, trust). No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, the description covers cost, output fields, and trust. Lacks details on error cases (e.g., non-URL, non-article) but sufficient for typical use.

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 (url) with schema description 'Public http(s) URL to extract'. Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds minor context ('any public URL') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the action 'extract main article content' from 'any public URL' and output format 'clean markdown'. Returns specific fields (title, byline, etc.). Differentiates from sibling tools like http_check, tls_cert, whois, etc. which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies usage through description but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The trust note ('Marked untrustedContent') provides context but not comparison with siblings.

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