trailsearch_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: extracted content is 'clean,' include_raw_content returns 'raw (unfiltered)' content, and the return type is a JSON string. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'clean' means operationally.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and params/returns organized clearly. There is little wasted text, though the endpoint name in the first sentence is minor redundancy given the tool name.

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?

The description covers all parameters and states the return shape, and an output schema exists. But it lacks usage routing versus trailsearch_search, does not mention the default behavior of include_raw_content, and gives no constraints or caveats. Given the absence of annotations and low schema richness, these gaps are noticeable.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter explanations. It does, providing plain-language meaning for all three parameters: URLs to extract, an optional context query, and a raw-content flag. It could go further by noting that include_raw_content defaults to true and by clarifying how the query affects extraction.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch clean content from known URLs via the TrailSearch /extract endpoint.' It clearly identifies what the tool operates on, and the phrase 'known URLs' implicitly distinguishes it from trailsearch_search. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus trailsearch_search, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'known URLs' weakly implies this tool is for URLs you already have rather than discovering them, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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