APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output structure (text, title, author, date), batch limit (20 URLs), and service provider (Tavily). However, lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior with invalid URLs.

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?

Three efficient segments totaling one sentence plus fragments. Front-loaded with core action, zero waste. 'Eliminates scraping' and 'Perfect for...' phrases earn their place by distinguishing from siblings and defining use case.

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?

No output schema exists, but description comprehensively documents return values (text, title, author, date). Single parameter with 100% schema coverage means minimal description burden. Mention of Tavily adds provider context. Complete for this complexity level.

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 100% with complete parameter documentation. Description echoes the 20-URL limit and purpose but does not add semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no format examples or URL validation rules). Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Extract' with clear resource (content from URLs), scope limit (up to 20), and return fields (text, title, author, published date). Explicitly differentiates from scraping siblings with 'Eliminates scraping' phrase.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('Perfect for feeding web pages into agent context windows') and negative guidance ('Eliminates scraping') implying preference over raw scraping tools. However, does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search.ai.web or diffbot.articles.extract.

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