Извлечение таблиц

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that output is CSV text and that extraction is capped by max_tables, though it does not discuss pagination or error behavior.

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 tightly structured into WHEN, WHAT, and NOT sections, is front-loaded with the triggering condition, and contains no wasted sentences.

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 simple extraction task, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers routing and basic behavior well. Parameter titles and defaults in the schema fill most remaining gaps, though explicit url semantics are still absent from the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that selector is a CSS selector and that max_tables limits the number of extracted tables, but it does not explicitly explain the required url parameter or the default values already present in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: extract table content as CSV text using a CSS selector. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming cases where extract, fetch_page, or snapshot are preferable instead.

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 WHEN/WHAT/NOT structure explicitly states when to use this tool, when not to use it, and which alternative tool to use in each excluded case. This leaves little ambiguity for an agent choosing among extract, fetch_page, and table_extract.

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