Parse Website (Apify)

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'using the Apify crawler backend', which suggests an external network operation. However, it does not disclose potential costs, rate limits, or output behavior, and does not contradict 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 a single, short sentence that states the core function and backend without any fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the primary purpose but lacks details about return chunks format, edge cases, or how it differs functionally from the non-Apify variant. With no output schema and multiple parameters, the agent gets enough to invoke it but not a full picture, so a moderate score is warranted.

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 all six parameters (url, chunk_size, extra_info, extra_fields, chunk_overlap, parser_config) have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('website URL into chunks') and mentions 'Apify crawler backend', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'lyzr_parse_website' likely using a different backend. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for website parsing with Apify as the backend, which hints at when to use it versus other parse tools, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No clear 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance is provided.

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