extract_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Retrieve" implies a read-only network fetch, but there is no disclosure of failure modes (non-HTML pages, blocked/403 responses, empty metadata), rate limits, or whether the page is actually downloaded. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the return payload without filler. It is appropriately sized, though it stops short of any routing or caveat content that would make the compactness maximally useful.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the extracted fields effectively documents the return shape. What is missing is behavioral context (failure modes, page-type requirements), which matters given the absence of both annotations and an output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Target web page URL"), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case for high schema coverage.

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 ("Retrieve") and enumerates exactly which metadata artifacts are returned: page title, OpenGraph tags, meta descriptions, canonical links. This differentiates it from siblings like scrape_url and extract_links by scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over scrape_url or extract_links, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., must be an HTML page, must be reachable). The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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