extract_article

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced content extraction' and that output includes 'main article text, metadata, and reading stats.' However, it omits details on handling non-article URLs, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no repetition or filler. The first sentence precisely states the action and output, the second adds context on use cases and extraction quality. Every word earns its place.

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 5 nested options and no output schema, the description should clarify return structure more. It specifies markdown with metadata and stats but not error handling, pagination, or behavior for non-article content. This is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for advanced usage.

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% meaning two top-level params exist but options lacks a description. The description adds value by mentioning 'metadata and reading stats,' which relates to the include_metadata option. However, it does not explain other options like max_length or remove_nav, so compensation is partial.

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 clean article content from any URL'), the resource ('any URL'), and the output format ('agent-optimized markdown'). It further specifies domains ('news, blogs, documentation'), which helps differentiate from siblings like extract_structured_data.

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 indicates ideal usage contexts ('Perfect for agents processing news, blogs, documentation.') but does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or mention alternatives like extract_links for non-article content. This still provides clear guidance for typical use.

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