web_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto mode fallback but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, output size limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and supported providers. It is efficiently front-loaded with no unnecessary detail.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to handle failures, or differentiate between provider behaviors. A more thorough description is needed to compensate for missing structured metadata.

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 coverage is only 17% (only 'urls' has a description). The description lists provider names but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema for parameters like format, render_js, include_images, or include_raw_html. The enum values are provided by the schema, but description does not explain their impact.

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?

Description clearly states it extracts markdown or HTML from URLs, distinguishing it from the sibling tool web_search which performs searches. The verb 'extract' and resource description are specific and actionable.

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?

Describes supported providers and auto mode fallback, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use extraction vs. search, or when to choose a specific provider. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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