extract_structured_data_tool

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

The description clearly discloses the output format: 'Dictionary containing json_ld and microdata if found.' It also notes the conditional nature ('if found'), which is important. However, it does not mention edge cases like invalid HTML or empty results, though the return type partially covers this. With no annotations, this level of disclosure is decent.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact Args/Returns format. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one input parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It states the input, the extraction targets, and the return structure. The context signal confirms an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values further.

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 schema provides no description for the 'html' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It states 'html: HTML content,' which clarifies that the input is raw HTML content rather than a URL or file path. This minimal explanation is sufficient for a single parameter and adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 function: 'Extracts structured data (JSON-LD, microdata) from HTML.' This specifies both the verb and the resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings such as extract_links_tool and extract_article_tool by focusing on structured data 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling extraction tools. It neither mentions alternative tools nor gives explicit usage scenarios. The only implication is from the tool name and description, which is insufficient.

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