web_extract

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the 15,000 char default budget, head-and-tail windowing for long pages, the side effect of writing full text to a local file plus read_file paging instructions, the missing PDF dependency, and inline image representation. An agent knows the return shape, truncation behavior, and failure modes before calling.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, then budget behavior, then edge cases (PDFs, images, failures). Every sentence contributes distinct, actionable information with no 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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers return format, truncation and file-save behavior, image representation, and failure fallback. For a 3-param read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the char_budget default of 15,000 and, crucially, the behavioral consequence of exceeding it (head-and-tail window, saved file, paging path).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Extract readable page content from URLs') and clarifies the output form (cleaned Markdown/text, no LLM summarization). It does not explicitly name the sibling web_search as the contrast, so the search-vs-extract distinction is left implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

It gives clear when-not guidance: 'If a page fails, times out, or requires JavaScript, login, or clicks, use a browser tool instead.' It also notes PDFs are accepted but fail without a dependency. It never mentions the web_search sibling or when to prefer it, so this is strong context without full alternative routing.

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