extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that providing `goal` triggers navigation before extraction and that output is schema-driven. However, it does not clarify what happens when `url` is supplied without `goal`, whether extraction leaves page state changed, or what error/response behavior to expect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral mode and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must do more than it does. It covers the core purpose and main usage pattern, but the relationship between `url`, `goal`, and the current page is underspecified, which is material for correct invocation.

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 67%, so the schema documents `goal` and `schema` but not `url`. The description adds value by explaining `goal`'s conditional behavior and giving a concrete `schema` example, but it leaves the `url` parameter ambiguous and does not fully compensate for that gap.

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 first sentence, 'Get structured JSON from a page,' states a specific verb, resource, and output type. This clearly differentiates it from navigation and visual siblings like click, browse, snapshot, and screenshot, so an agent can identify it as the extraction tool.

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 gives explicit conditional usage: with `goal` it browses first; without it, it extracts from the current page. It also tells the caller to describe the desired shape in `schema`. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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