Mcp Extract Table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavioral fact - narrative text and tabular data are separated by design, so this tool returns tables only. It omits operational traits like pagination limits, auth, or rate behavior, but the core surprise an agent would hit is covered.

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 short blocks with the core action front-loaded and the routing caveat immediately after. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose and routing well. The remaining gap is parameter behavior, which the zero-coverage schema leaves entirely to the description and the description does not supply.

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% across 3 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. max_rows (default 200) and table_selector (default 'table') materially affect results, yet neither their meaning nor their defaults are explained anywhere in prose.

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 specific verb, resource, and output form: 'Extract all tables from a URL as structured JSON rows.' It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (mcp_browser_navigate), so an agent can discriminate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: tables must go through this tool, not mcp_browser_navigate, with a concrete justification (Readability drops/mangles interleaved table/details markup on GitHub Releases pages). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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