veroq_extract

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

No annotations, but the description discloses key behaviors: paywall handling, return format with truncation, credit cost, and max URL constraint. It lacks details on error handling but covers the main expectations.

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?

Exceptionally well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS). Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but the description specifies return fields (title, domain, word count, truncated text) and constraints (max 5 URLs, cost). It is adequate for most use cases, though missing error scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides an example format ('urls' as comma-separated) and reiterates constraints, but adds no new meaning beyond the 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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Extract article content from URLs'. Specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'veroq_crawl', but given the context, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides context (analysis of full text). However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, limiting guidance for an AI agent.

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