Extract Content

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the tool performs a read-only operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful context about the output composition (headings, paragraphs, images, links, statistics) but does not reveal behavioral traits such as rate limits, redirect handling, or JavaScript rendering. There is no contradiction with 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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb and resource, then lists the extracted content types in a compact, readable sequence. There is no wasted wording or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the expected result: structured content elements and statistics. It does not mention potential limitations like dynamic content or redirects, but these are minor for a read-only tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 already fully documents the single 'url' parameter with a type, format, and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying a URL from 'web page', which meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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's function: extracting structured content from a web page, and enumerates the specific content types (headings hierarchy, paragraphs, images, links, plain text with statistics). This goes beyond a generic phrase and helps differentiate it from fetch_page or simple link extractors, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools such as extract_links, extract_with_schema, or fetch_page. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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