web_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that output is markdown by default, that content is truncated via max_chars, and that fmt controls markdown/plain/rich/raw-HTML/bytes-to-str conversion. This gives a strong model of behavior without dependency on schema or annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage context, then a terse Args list. Every line adds value, and the most critical facts (default format and usage order) are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details need no explanation. The description covers the operation, the param family with defaults, and the intended position in a search-then-extract workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: it explains urls are 1-5 absolute http(s) URLs, max_chars caps returned content per page with default 600, and fmt enumerates all accepted values including their semantic differences. This is exactly the parameter clarification the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract readable content from 1-5 web pages (markdown by default).' This clearly identifies the operation and scope, and the placement relative to search tools distinguishes it as a follow-up retrieval action rather than a search.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use after web_search/news_search to read the actual page content,' giving the agent clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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