extract

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses automatic denoising (filtering navigation/ads), automatic retry on failure, and the JSON return format with title/markdown/length. These go beyond the obvious, though it omits rate limits, auth, or failure edge cases.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds denoising, retry, and return format details. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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?

For a simple extraction tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and return format. However, it omits parameter semantics and provides no usage context relative to its sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer when and how to invoke it fully.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'max_words' at all, and only indirectly implies 'url' via the extraction context. The description focuses on behavior and output, leaving parameter semantics unexplained.

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's function: extracting webpage main content as Markdown, with denoising and retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use 'extract' versus 'search' or any other alternative. The description explains what the tool does but gives no context about when to select it, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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