extract_with_schema

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 only says 'Extract structured data' — it doesn't reveal whether it executes live HTTP requests, how it handles multiple URLs, whether output is validated/returned against the schema, or what happens on failure. For a data-extraction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 wasted words, which is good for conciseness. However, the brevity masks missing critical context; it is underspecified rather than appropriately concise, so it doesn't earn full marks for effective structure.

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 tool with 3 parameters, nested schema objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is markedly incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship between prompt and schema, the behavior with multiple URLs, expected output format, or error handling. An agent cannot fully know how to construct a correct call or interpret results from this description alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description's 'using a JSON schema' merely echoes the schema parameter's purpose without adding syntax, format, or interaction details — e.g., how 'prompt' modifies the schema-driven extraction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb (Extract), a resource (structured data), and a mechanism (using a JSON schema), giving the agent a basic sense of what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'extract_data' — with two extraction tools present, the description leaves the agent unsure how extract_with_schema differs from extract_data beyond the name's hint about schema-driven extraction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like extract_data, scrape_page, or batch_scrape. There is no when/to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The name and description imply a schema-based extraction use case, but the agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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