extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is JSON and input requires a schema, but does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or behavior on invalid URLs. This is a basic but incomplete disclosure.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently conveys usage and format. Minor room for improvement: integrating the example more concisely could reduce redundancy with the schema.

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 the three parameters (two required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and schema format. However, it lacks mention of the optional 'context' parameter and does not specify output structure beyond 'as JSON'. Constraints like size limits or supported URL types are absent, making it barely adequate for a complete picture.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the schema format with an example and clarifying the data types. However, it does not mention the optional 'context' parameter, which is covered in the schema but not in the description.

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 structured data from any URL as JSON, using a user-provided schema. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scrape' (general HTML extraction) and 'search' (querying). The verb 'extract' and resource 'structured data' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool by providing examples of suitable use cases (prices, availability, product details). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with sibling tools like 'crawl' or 'batch_scrape', leaving some room for interpretation.

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