webscrape.extractDesign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying static HTML fetch and no JavaScript rendering, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions. It does not mention other behaviors like error handling, but the bar is lower given the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the key limitation. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, existing output schema) and the annotations providing safety profile, the description covers purpose, scope, and limitations comprehensively. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 for the single 'url' parameter is 100% (the schema describes it as 'The URL to analyze'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond rephrasing it as 'webpage'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Analyze a webpage and extract its design system' and enumerates specific aspects (colors, fonts, font sizes, spacing, layout patterns, class names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webscrape.scrape, which likely performs general scraping.

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 implies usage for design system extraction and notes the static HTML limitation ('does not render JavaScript'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for dynamic pages) or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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