extract_url

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. It discloses key traits: requires API key or payment, cached URLs are free, and the tool handles bot-blocked sites. It does not mention potential rate limits, failure behavior, or throttling, but covers the most critical operational aspects.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. Each sentence adds unique value: the action+output, the capability for complex pages, and the auth/payment model. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing extracted data types. It covers the tool's purpose, output, edge cases (SPAs, bot-blocking), and operational prerequisites. It lacks explicit error/timeout behavior, but the complexity is moderate and the essential information is present.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining 'api_key' (from register) and 'tx_hash' (x402 payment) in context, and clarifies that cached URLs are free which affects parameter usage. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract and structure a web page into clean JSON.' It clearly enumerates output types (text, tables, prices, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings (register, account_info, add_wallet, deposit), which are all unrelated to web extraction.

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?

Provides clear usage context: handles JavaScript-rendered SPAs and bot-blocked sites, and explains the auth/payment requirements (API key or x402, cached URLs free). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative extraction tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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