parse_governance_block_html

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 reveal that the tool searches for specific tags (script or meta), which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, potential failures (e.g., no governance block found), or whether it extracts multiple blocks or just one. This is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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 two sentences, directly to the point, with no superfluous information. It front-loads the primary action and then clarifies the extraction targets, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter parsing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and mechanism. It could be enhanced by describing the output format or edge-case behavior, but given the simplicity and self-explanatory nature, the existing description is largely complete.

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% (single 'html' parameter with description 'HTML content to parse'), so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('governance block from an HTML page'). It also specifies the mechanism ('Looks for APS governance script tags or meta tags'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_governance_block or verify_governance_block.

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 when to use the tool: when you have HTML content and need to extract a governance block. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the action of parsing HTML is distinct from generation or verification, providing clear contextual guidance.

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