extract_tables

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

Annotations already cover safety characteristics with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool also reports whether ruling lines or gaps were used. However, it does not discuss limitations, handling of malformed tables, or what happens when no tables are found.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action: 'Extract tables as rows.' The second sentence adds a worthwhile detail without padding. It is appropriately sized, though the unusual phrasing 'Says whether ruling lines or gaps were used' could be slightly clearer.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that could easily overlap, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, input expectations, and any output structure beyond 'rows,' leaving important gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the four parameters: source, pages, password, and min_confidence. Required source and optional parameters are left completely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer their meaning or valid formats from the description.

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 specific operation: extracting tables as rows, and adds a distinct behavioral detail about reporting ruling lines or gaps. It is clear about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like 'extract' or 'to_markdown'.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'extract', 'probe', 'outline', or 'to_markdown'. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer selection context.

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