microlink_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes many behaviors: metadata extraction, custom scraping via 'data', enabling media features with 'true' or objects, CDN asset URLs, device emulation, headers, proxy, JS injection, interaction, caching, etc. It does not mention rate limits or auth details, but covers a wide range of behaviors transparently.

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 a single dense paragraph. It is informative but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points). It front-loads the core purpose but later lists many options in a run-on fashion. Could be more concise and organized.

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 tool has 39 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly comprehensive but still misses many parameters (e.g., viewport, waitForSelector, embed, filter). It covers the most important behaviors and provides enough context for typical use, but not complete for edge cases.

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. It explains key parameters like data, screenshot, pdf, insights, device, headers, etc., and their behavior (e.g., passing true enables defaults). However, many of the 39 parameters (e.g., adblock, animations, colorScheme, waitUntil, timeout) are not mentioned, leaving gaps.

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 structured metadata from any public URL via Microlink' and lists the normalized fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the main extraction tool that can also enable features like screenshot, pdf, etc., while siblings are for individual features.

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 that this tool can extract metadata and combine multiple features in one request, implying it is for comprehensive extraction. It mentions sibling features like screenshot, pdf, etc., allowing an agent to choose this over specialized siblings when multiple outputs are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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