run_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 discloses that the tool is synchronous ('returns the result immediately') and that it performs a read-like operation, but it does not mention rate limits, timeout behavior, or error handling. While it is not destructive, a little more context on runtime constraints would improve transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a relevant behavioral note about being synchronous. There is zero filler, and every word contributes to the understanding of the tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates that the result will be extracted structured data, but it does not specify the exact response structure. For a relatively straightforward extraction tool, this is sufficient; however, a detail about the response format would make it fully complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds a helpful synthesis by explaining that instructions and/or a JSON schema guide extraction, but it does not add new details about parameter formats or edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the work.

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 identifies the tool as one that loads a webpage and extracts structured data, using specific verbs ('loads', 'extracts') and resources ('URL', 'structured data'). It is distinct from sibling tools like run_search or run_research, which focus on other operations, so there is no confusion about its purpose.

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 when to use the tool: whenever structured data extraction from a webpage is needed, with input via natural-language instructions and/or a JSON schema. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for extraction tasks.

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