table_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state the core behavior: extracting HTML tables and returning them as CSV text, which implies read-only parsing. However, it does not discuss edge cases such as no tables found, JavaScript-rendered pages, or limits imposed by selector and max_tables.

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 entry is compact and front-loaded: the main transformation arrow comes first. The phrase 'pattern table export' is somewhat vague, but the text has almost no filler and is fast to scan.

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?

With one required parameter and defaults for the rest, the tool is usable at a basic level from the description alone. Still, there is no guidance on when to change selector or max_tables, and no mention of errors or access constraints; the existence of an output schema compensates for return-value shaping.

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, but it does not. It only implies url through the word 'page' and provides no explanation of selector or max_tables. A basic call works only because the schema supplies defaults.

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 names a precise transformation: HTML tables from a page into CSV text, with typical use cases (specifications, price lists, comparisons). This differentiates it from generic extraction tools such as extract, export, or fetch_page.

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 gives only implied context and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name any sibling alternative or state what this tool should not be used for.

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