firecrawl_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'extract structured data with license tracking' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'license tracking' entails. The term 'extract' suggests data retrieval but no confirmation of safety or side effects.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. For a tool with 4 parameters (including a nested object), the description should front-load the core purpose but also provide brief parameter guidance. Currently, it is too brief to be maximally useful.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (with enums and nested objects) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., URL validity), and any constraints. It fails to provide this context, leaving a significant gap in completeness.

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 only 25% (only the 'options' parameter has a description). The tool description adds 'license tracking' but does not clarify the meaning of parameters like 'stage' or 'distribution' beyond their enum values. For example, 'stage' could be a processing pipeline step, but no context is provided. This leaves agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 tool extracts structured data from URLs, which is a specific verb+resource. The addition of 'with license tracking' adds nuance. However, it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like firecrawl_scrape (which likely also extracts data) or firecrawl_crawl. Slightly more context on what 'structured data' means relative to other tools would improve clarity.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as firecrawl_scrape or firecrawl_crawl. No mention of prerequisites or ideal scenarios. The description lacks any usage context, leaving agents to infer appropriateness.

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