web_extract

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

Discloses response features like bounded-context limits, truncation warnings, evidence, and stored-content references. However, with no annotations provided, aspects like authorization needs, rate limits, error behavior, and destructive potential are omitted. The description adds some value beyond schema but is incomplete.

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 sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks crucial details such as return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and parameter interactions. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 17% (only 'urls' parameter described). The description mentions '8 Web Search Plus v3 providers' but does not explain parameters like 'format', 'provider', 'render_js', etc. It adds little meaning beyond the schema's enum values.

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 specifies 'Source-only URL extraction' which clearly states the verb (extract) and resource (URLs). It also mentions the use of multiple providers, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'web_search' which searches instead of extracting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'web_search'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or alternative scenarios. Context must be inferred.

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