get_table_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only offers the vague output label 'formatted text grid.' It does not state what happens on selector mismatch or non-table matches, whether headers are included, how nested tables are handled, or the wait/timeout behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and purpose appear immediately. However, the brevity partly results from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it falls short of a top score.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits the selector-mechanism parameter ('by'), the 'timeout' semantics, error behavior, and any meaningful detail about the returned grid structure. An agent would have to guess at parameter interactions and expected output shape.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so only 'selector' is documented, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own note about targeting a <table> element. The 'by' (CSS vs XPath selection mechanism) and 'timeout' parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate for this 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a clear resource ('data from an HTML table') and names the output form ('formatted text grid'), conveying exactly what the tool produces. It is implicitly distinct from siblings such as get_text, get_page_source, and find_elements, though no sibling is explicitly named or contrasted.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_text, get_page_source, or execute_script, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. An agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name and the single sentence.

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