get_table_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ({headers, rows, total_rows}) and mapping behavior. However, it does not mention potential errors, limitations (e.g., only first table), or performance characteristics.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the main purpose and adds value with usage guidance, making every word earn its place.

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?

The description provides return structure and usage context. With only 3 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations, it covers the essential aspects. A slight improvement would be to clarify if it handles multiple tables or only the first.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds default values (max_rows:100, selector:'table') which are already in the schema. It provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('HTML table into structured data'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page_elements or get_page_html by focusing on tabular content parsing.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use instead of scraping table markup by hand when verifying tabular content'), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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