extract_contacts

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not mention rate limits, network cost, whether a crawl is long-running, whether failures are surfaced per-URL, or what happens when a site blocks crawling. Only the page-selection scope (home/about/contact) is disclosed.

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 wasted words; the verb and resource lead and the extraction targets follow. Slightly list-heavy with the parenthetical platform enumeration but still efficient.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and extraction scope but omits return shape, batching semantics for urls, and behavioral limits. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would need to know.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters with defaults and ranges. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g., how url interacts with urls), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (crawl) plus resource (website pages) and enumerates exactly what it extracts, including the specific social platforms. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like read_url (single page) and crawl_site_markdown (crawling for markdown content rather than contact data).

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 the extraction use case but never states when to use this over read_url or crawl_site_markdown, nor when-not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance are given; the agent must infer usage from the name and scope alone.

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