stl_web_extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the structure of the extracted data (e.g., prices in integer cents, BUS/RAIL separation), which is not in the schema.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the main purpose, uses bullet-like output categories, and includes only necessary info. No wasted sentences; each element earns 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return types. It covers the main extraction categories and the page parameter. The only missing piece is the snapshot parameter's semantics, but overall the tool is straightforward and the description is sufficient for basic use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain 'page' with a pointer to stl_web_list, but completely omits the 'snapshot' parameter (optional, default null). This leaves the agent to guess its purpose, a notable gap.

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 verb ('extract') and resource ('stored page capture') and details the output categories (fares, holidays, schedule_changes, others). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like stl_web_list (listing pages) and stl_web_capture (capturing pages) by focusing on 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?

It provides clear context on how to obtain valid inputs ('Run stl_web_list for valid values'), implying the workflow of first listing then extracting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like stl_web_check.

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