extract_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that blocked/failed pages result in extraction errors, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The tool name 'extract' hints at read behavior, but more explicit disclosure is expected.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states action and outputs, second sentence gives usage guidance, third explains error handling. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values, but it does list outputs (content, metadata, links, hashes). It explains error handling adequately. However, it could elaborate on the payment parameters and prerequisites for success.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., URLs with service limits, payment details). The context of extracting content indirectly applies to the 'urls' parameter, but no additional parameter-specific guidance.

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 extracts 'readable content, metadata, links, and hashes' from page URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'when the caller already knows which pages matter', implying it's for targeted extraction rather than search or monitoring.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when the caller already knows which pages matter', providing clear context. It also mentions that blocked/failed pages return errors, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like search or monitor_diff.

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