web_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns formatted content, has a flat pricing model, and a 402 error for unpaid requests. However, it lacks details on error handling for invalid URLs, timeouts, or content size limits, which would improve transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences that cover functionality and payment model, plus a parenthetical note. Each sentence contributes value, and the key information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's core functionality and payment model. It could be improved by mentioning error cases beyond 402 and content limitations, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple extraction tool.

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 only parameter 'url' is already described in the input schema as 'The page URL to extract (http/https)'. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond this, and with 100% schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the action (fetch), resource (web page), and output (clean readable text, light markdown, title/description/links). It distinguishes from sibling tools like link_preview and robots_check by specifying the complete extraction of text and metadata.

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 specifies the HTTP method (POST), the required parameter (url), and importantly, the payment requirement and the 402 error for unpaid requests. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the payment context implies usage only with a funded wallet.

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