Contact Extract

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context - it doesn't mention what happens if the page is unreachable, data freshness, or any side effects. The pricing mention is cost-related, not behavioral.

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: the first states purpose and use case clearly; the second adds pricing context. While the second sentence is relevant to the tool's ecosystem, it could be placed elsewhere or streamlined. Overall, it's reasonably concise with minimal waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by listing extracted items (emails, phones, social links). However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavior when no contacts are found. For a simple extraction tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% and both parameters (url, timeout) are well-described in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantics about how the timeout affects extraction or what types of URLs are supported. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 tool extracts emails, phones, and social links from a page, with explicit use cases (outreach, routing, support). This differentiates it from sibling extraction tools like util_links_extract (which extracts all links) and util_page_extract (which extracts page text).

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 mentions use cases but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude any scenarios. It mentions pricing context but that is not usage guidance. With many sibling extraction utilities, explicit usage comparisons are missing.

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