Extract Product Data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the claim that it 'Works on any retailer without custom integration', but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or error behaviors. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description provides marginal added 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 a single sentence that begins with the key information. It is concise with no filler, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Given its brevity and front-loading, it scores well.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but referenced), and the description enumerates main output fields. With only three well-documented parameters and a simple extraction purpose, the description covers the essentials. It could mention edge cases or limitations, but overall it is sufficient for the task.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, with all three parameters (url, discussion, timeout) well-described. The description lists output fields (title, price, etc.) but adds no new meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline score is appropriate since schema fully documents parameters.

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 'structured product data' and specifies the domain 'e-commerce URL'. It lists output fields and mentions broad compatibility. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like diffbot.articles.extract, missing a chance to guide tool selection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's suitable for any e-commerce site but does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools (e.g., diffbot.knowledge.search). This omission forces the agent to infer usage context.

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