extract-schema-markup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Analyze' but does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, what side effects exist (e.g., hitting external URLs), or any limitations such as rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without any redundancy or filler.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the analysis returns (e.g., extracted markup, structured data). It only says 'Analyze' without specifying output shape, leaving the return value ambiguous.

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 fully covers the single 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 explicitly states the verb 'Analyze' and the resource: 'JSON-LD, microdata, and schema.org markup on a webpage.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit-seo or find-marketing-technologies, which focus on other aspects.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the description and tool name imply it is the go-to tool for extracting schema markup, differentiating from overlapping siblings like check-page-metadata or audit-seo.

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