browser_structured_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only scrape but never states that it mutates nothing, does not require the page to be fully loaded, and says nothing about the result shape (grouped by type? empty when absent?). Key behavior is left unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the three extraction targets are enumerated crisply. It is efficient, though its terseness edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 extractor this covers the 'what', but with no output schema and no annotations the description omits return format, empty-result behavior, and the tab_id default. An agent can invoke it but cannot predict the response.

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 one parameter (tab_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It never explains that omitting tab_id presumably targets the active tab, or how to obtain a valid tab id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and three concrete resource types (JSON-LD, OpenGraph og:*, Twitter card meta), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as browser_meta or browser_readability, which likely overlap on meta-tag extraction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. page must be loaded), and no routing to alternatives like browser_meta or browser_page_info. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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