MCP Web Scrape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'extract' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether authentication is required, rate limits, what happens if no contact info is found, error handling, or output format. It mentions 'web pages' but not whether it follows redirects or handles dynamic content.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented in the schema. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (structured data? list of contacts?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'contact information like emails, phones, addresses' which aligns with the 'types' parameter enum values, but provides no additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Extract contact information like emails, phones, addresses from web pages'. It specifies the action (extract), resource (contact information), and source (web pages). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_content' or 'extract_entities', which could also extract information from web pages.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling extraction tools (e.g., extract_content, extract_entities, extract_links), there's no indication of when this specific contact-focused extraction is appropriate versus other extraction methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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