extract_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the extracted fields but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or constraints on URL accessibility. Basic transparency is present but not exhaustive.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing output fields separately).

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides basic completeness. But it omits return format details, error handling, and required access permissions. It's acceptable for a straightforward extraction tool.

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 50% (only 'url' is described). The description mentions output fields but adds no semantic detail for parameters beyond the schema's minimal description. 'wait_for' parameter is entirely undocumented, and description does not compensate for this gap.

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 the action ('Extract article fields') and lists specific fields (title, author, date, topics, summary) and the input source (URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_product.

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 implies usage for extracting article metadata from a URL, and the context of sibling tools suggests alternatives (e.g., extract_product). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings.

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