extract_og_image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states that it returns all social media preview images found, which gives some behavioral detail, but it does not clarify whether the return values are URLs or binary image data, nor how missing images or redirects are handled. This leaves ambiguity about actual behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Extract', and contains no redundant information. It efficiently states the tool's function and output in a clear, structured manner.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and return behavior. However, the exact return type (URL vs image data) is ambiguous, and there is no mention of error handling or prerequisites. This leaves the description incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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?

The schema fully describes the url parameter with high coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'from any URL', which suggests no restrictions but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. No further parameter details are given.

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 clearly identifies the tool as extracting Open Graph, Twitter card, and Apple touch icon images from URLs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_favicons or image_metadata. The verb 'extract' and the specific resource list are unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving social media preview images but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. Without alternative guidance, the usage context is only implied.

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