extract_html_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the cost via x402, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how it handles malformed HTML, or what the output format is.

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 brief (two clauses) but wastes its brevity by restating the tool name and focusing on cost. It lacks substantive information, making it under-specification rather than proper conciseness.

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 the tool's apparent complexity (extracting HTML tables), the minimal description, no output schema, and no annotations leave major gaps. An agent cannot reliably know input requirements, return structure, or edge-case behaviors.

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 only a generic 'params' object with no specific properties, and the description adds no detail about what parameters are needed (e.g., URL, HTML string, selector). Schema coverage is 100% only in a tautological sense, so the description must compensate but doesn't.

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 'extract html table' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating the tool extracts tables from HTML. However, it doesn't distinguish this from related sibling tools like 'read_url' or 'web_scrape', which could also extract content from HTML.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_scrape or extract_contacts. The description only adds a cost note, not context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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