run_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says only that it 'loads' a page. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, whether extraction is dynamic/JS-rendered, what the 'instructions' parameter controls, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is efficient but leaves too much unsaid for a 3-parameter 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?

For a tool with three required params, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. The agent lacks guidance on instructions semantics, settings behavior, and expected output, making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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 0% for three required parameters, including a nested settings object with country_code and extract_schema_json. The phrase 'by URL' loosely maps to the url param but the description adds no meaning for 'instructions' or the settings sub-fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('loads a page') and outcome ('extracts structured data') with the input source ('by URL'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling extraction tools, which is the main gap at this level.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With dozens of site-specific sibling extractors (run_amazon_product, run_ebay_item, etc.) the agent gets no signal on when this generic extractor is preferable.

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