free_extract

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses that output is clean markdown but does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, error handling, or behavior with non-text content. The transparency is adequate but lacks depth.

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 with four short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidelines without any superfluous 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, output format, and use cases. It could mention handling of unsupported URLs or errors, but for a simple extract tool, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters (url and max_length) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the context of 'clean markdown,' so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Extract full content from a URL' and 'Returns clean markdown,' defining a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending it for specific pages found in search results.

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 provides 'Best for' and 'Not recommended for' scenarios, advising against bulk extraction and directing to use 'search first' (referring to sibling tools). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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