extract_metadata_tool

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 discloses that the tool accepts HTML and returns a dictionary with metadata keys, but it lacks details on edge cases like malformed HTML or missing meta tags. This provides basic transparency but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated in the first sentence followed by separate args and returns sections. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague.

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 simple one-parameter extraction tool, the description adequately covers input and output, especially since an output schema exists. It could be enhanced by explicitly noting that it does not fetch URLs (use fetch_url) or by listing more precise return keys, but it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 'Args' section in the description describes the `html` parameter as 'HTML content,' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., full document vs. fragment) or encoding, so the compensation for the 0% schema coverage is minimal.

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 that the tool 'Extracts metadata from HTML including title, description, and Open Graph tags,' specifying a precise verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like extract_article and extract_links, which handle other content types.

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 metadata extraction but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool's name and purpose.

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