html_clean_boilerpipe_extractor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the heuristic algorithm (Boilerpipe) and the cost (0.030 USDC), which adds some context. However, it does not disclose limitations (e.g., handling dynamic content, JS-rendered pages), input format expectations, or failure behavior. It's a moderate effort but leaves significant behavioral details unknown.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes cost information without unnecessary fluff. Every clause contributes meaning: the stripping targets, the algorithm, the output type, and the price. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and has no annotation, so the description must explain what the tool returns and what inputs it expects. It does not specify whether the payload should be a URL or raw HTML, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., plain text, JSON). For a web-scraping tool with these gaps, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 schema documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about how to construct the payload or what the paymentSignature is for, relying entirely on the generic schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't compensate for the lack of specific parameter guidance.

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 clearly states a specific action ('strips headers, footers, popups, and ad tracking scripts') and resource ('web pages') with the goal of extracting pure article text. It names the algorithm (Boilerpipe) and the heuristic approach, making it distinct from sibling tools like scrape_html_headless_fallback or clean_markdown_for_llm. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this is preferred, nor exclusions or alternatives. Given the large sibling set that includes other web-processing tools, this lack of usage context forces the agent to guess based solely on the name and one-liner.

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