extract_contacts

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It adds useful cost information ($0.001 USDC via x402), but lacks other behavioral disclosures such as expected inputs, outputs, failure modes, or rate limits. The cost detail is valuable but incomplete.

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 extremely short, consisting of a single sentence fragment. It is concise and front-loaded, but under-specification is not a conciseness issue. The wording is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 Web & SEO tool that extracts contacts, the description omits essential context: what the tool takes as input (e.g., URL, text), what it returns, and when to use it. With no output schema and minimal detail, an agent cannot reliably select or invoke this 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?

The input schema only contains a generic 'params' object with a placeholder description, providing no information about actual parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter names, formats, or examples. This is a critical gap.

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 the verb 'extract' and resource 'contacts', labeling it a Web & SEO tool. However, it does not clarify what constitutes 'contacts' (e.g., emails, phone numbers) or the source (web page, text). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'extract_entities' but still ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The generic 'Web & SEO tool' label does not provide practical context or exclusions. No mention of specific use cases or conditions.

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