firecrawlsearchagent_firecrawl_extract_web_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. It describes key behavioral traits: the tool can process single URLs or entire domains using wildcards, and requires an extraction prompt. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with invalid URLs. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second specifies scope and contrasts with alternatives, third provides critical parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 complexity (web data extraction with natural language instructions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter requirements well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, performance characteristics, and operational constraints that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the 'extraction_prompt' parameter ('natural language instructions') and the 'urls' parameter ('can include wildcards'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('extract structured data') and resources ('from one or multiple web pages'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for data extraction rather than general search or scraping. It explicitly mentions natural language instructions as the method.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need specific information from websites rather than general search results') and distinguishes it from alternatives by contrasting with 'general search results'. It also specifies usage contexts like single URLs or entire domains with wildcards.

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