chrome_web_store_extensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral context: one row per extension, billing to the user's own Apify account, and the per-result price (~$0.0015). It omits auth/token requirements, rate limits, and error behavior for invalid ids, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads purpose plus returned fields, the second adds the cost disclosure. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns) comes first.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the cost model. The only gap is operational detail (auth, limits, failure modes) that an agent invoking it might want.

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% and the single parameter already documents accepted id and full-URL formats with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Chrome Web Store Extension Scraper returns users, rating, version, size, category and developer contact'), and the subject matter ('Chrome Web Store') naturally distinguishes it from the sibling vscode_marketplace_extensions / google_play_scraper. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route between, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied: pass an extension id or store URL to fetch metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use and no mention of the near-identical sibling store scrapers, leaving the agent to infer selection from the resource name.

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