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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description confirms (extract operation). The description adds the output format (list of row objects), but does not disclose behavior for non-table elements, invalid selectors, or complex tables. Transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with action and output. It is concise, but the brevity omits parameter details. For a simple tool, this is efficient but borderline incomplete.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description lacks context on error handling, table complexity support, or behavior when selector fails. More details would improve completeness for an agent.

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 sole parameter 'selector' is not described in the tool description or schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's role or constraints. It adds no value, leaving the agent to guess from the name and default.

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 extracts a standard HTML table and returns row objects keyed by header. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like playwright__get_html or playwright__get_text.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (when structured table data is needed), but no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other Playwright tools.

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