web_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does a solid job: it reveals that responses preserve bounded-context limits, include truncation warnings, retain evidence, and reference page-on-demand stored-content. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits an agent needs to anticipate before calling, going beyond a mere 'extracts pages' statement.

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 tight at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose before the behavioral notes. No filler or redundant phrasing, though the second sentence is dense with jargon (bounded-context limits, page-on-demand stored-content) that could be simplified.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains provider-source behavior but omits guidance on key options like rendering JavaScript, image/raw-HTML inclusion, or the semantic-span selection feature. An agent cannot infer how renders_js or include_raw_html affect output from this text.

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 38% across 8 parameters, and eight parameters (spans, format, render_js, include_images, include_raw_html, spans_query, provider) receive no explanation in the description. The only link is the mention of '9 providers', which loosely maps to the provider enum, but the description does not compensate for the heavy schema gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('source-only URL extraction' from URLs) and names the 9 providers behind it. 'Source-only' clearly implies the tool works from given URLs rather than search terms, which helps distinguish it from its only sibling web_search, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Source-only URL extraction' implies the tool is for extracting content from URLs you already have, and by contrast web_search would be for discovering URLs via queries. However, the description never explicitly states 'use this when you have URLs' or 'use web_search when you need to find pages', leaving the routing decision to inference.

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