APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the return structure and the 10-URL limit, but fails to mention error handling (e.g., invalid URLs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or content-type restrictions (e.g., HTML vs. PDF support). It meets baseline expectations but lacks depth.

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 optimally concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence front-loads the essential functionality and return values, while the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by listing the return fields. It could be improved by mentioning error handling behaviors or output format details (e.g., markdown vs. plain text), but it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'urls' parameter as accepting 1-10 items with URI format. The description reinforces the 'up to 10 URLs' constraint but does not add semantic nuance beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid URL or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 core action ('Extract clean text content'), the resource ('URLs'), the constraint ('up to 10'), and specific return fields ('title, author, published date, full text'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing extraction from specific URLs rather than querying, though it could more explicitly contrast with similar extraction tools like 'web.scrape.extract' or 'diffbot.articles.extract'.

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?

The description provides a specific use case ('Use for feeding web pages into agent context') which helps guide selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search.semantic.web' or 'search.ai.extract', and does not mention prerequisites such as needing valid, accessible URLs upfront.

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