Page Extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds context about Delx Agent Utilities being separate from the witness protocol and potential x402 pricing, which provides additional behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes relevant context about pricing in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what is returned (format, fields). It only mentions 'metadata and readable text' generically, leaving ambiguity about the exact return structure. Given the complexity of URL content extraction, more detail is needed.

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 both parameters (url, timeout) are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema descriptions, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 page metadata and readable text from a URL, with specific use cases mentioned (search, routing, summarization). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like util_open_graph or util_links_extract, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'for search, routing, and summarization', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., util_open_graph for metadata only). No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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