web_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool handles JavaScript-rendered pages, follows redirects, requires authentication, or what the structured output format looks like. For an extraction tool, these are significant gaps that could affect invocation expectations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists the exact content types extracted. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like or any limitations (e.g., dynamic content handling, robots.txt restrictions). It merely lists extracted elements without indicating the structure or format, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's actual behavior.

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 covers the single parameter 'url' with a description ('URL to extract content from'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'extract' with a clear resource 'URL' and enumerates the content types (title, headings, paragraphs, links, images, metadata). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like web_search (searching) and html_to_markdown (format conversion), even without naming them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_multi_extract or web_search. The description states what the tool does but not in which scenarios it should be chosen, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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