website_contacts_scraper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation and required `query`, but does not explain what the tool returns, how it behaves during scraping, potential rate limits, or side effects. The operation description 'Scrape Contacts from Website' is tautological and adds no behavioral context.

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 relatively brief and front-loads the main purpose, followed by the operation list and usage guidance. It is well-structured, though the redundant operation description 'Scrape Contacts from Website' and the unsupported 'also find a website URL by keyword' clause could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations to fill gaps, and the tool has a nested `args` object with a required operation. The description does not explain return values, error handling, or the 'find a website URL by keyword' feature it mentions. This is incomplete for an API-style tool with no other structured 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minimal operation schema and notes that `scrape_contacts` requires a `query`, but it does not clarify what `query` means (e.g., domain name vs. keyword) or how `args` should be structured. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but remains vague.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Extract emails, phone numbers and social links from a website/domain; also find a website URL by keyword.' This clearly states the tool's primary purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling email_search. However, the 'also find a website URL by keyword' capability is not reflected in the listed operations, which creates some ambiguity.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states 'Use to scrape contacts from a specific domain' and directs users to email_search for searching emails by person/company. This provides a clear use case and names a concrete alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.

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