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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses pagination behavior (hasMore indicates more items) and recommends narrowing filters over paginating, which is operational context not covered by annotations. It also notes versions are immutable, adding semantic detail.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the alternative tool, then pagination guidance. Every sentence adds value with 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?

The output schema exists, covering return values, and the description adds the key operational detail (pagination behavior) and the pointer to get_extractor. For a listing tool with 6 well-documented parameters, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters themselves, only mentioning hasMore which is an output field. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists an extractor's published (immutable) versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_extractor (fetch config) and other version-listing tools (classifier, splitter, workflow) by naming the extract group and noting the immutable nature.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use get_extractor when a single version's config is needed, and gives operational guidance on handling pagination (hasMore, nextPageToken). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other version-listing tools, though the tool name and context make that clear.

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