extract_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the max_tables cap and specifies the return structure, but omits details like network side effects, robots.txt handling, error behavior, or whether JavaScript is executed. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. The return format is compactly specified, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does provide the return format, which is helpful. However, it lacks guidance on usage context, exclude cases, and the third param (obey_robots), making it only partially complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It defines max_tables well (cap 1-100) and clarifies url implicitly via 'Fetch a page', but provides no meaning for obey_robots, which remains ambiguous. Partial compensation for a 3-param tool.

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 fetches a page and extracts HTML <table> elements, with a specific output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_links or fetch_page by focusing on tables as the resource.

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 for table extraction but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch_page or extract. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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