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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: the hasMore pagination signal, default ordering, and the recommendation to prefer filters over pagination. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not detail any side effects (consistent with read-only).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by targeted guidance on alternative tool usage and pagination. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description covers the core behavior (listing, ordering, pagination) and routes to the correct alternative. A minor gap is the vague reference to 'narrowing filters' when no explicit filter parameters exist in the schema, but this does not hinder effective use.

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% with all parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it clarifies the behavior of nextPageToken and the hasMore flag in relation to pagination. This is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 the workspace's extractors, notes the default ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly places it in the 'extract group' to distinguish it from sibling list tools. It also points to get_extractor for fetching a specific config, removing ambiguity about scope.

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 says to use get_extractor when a specific extractor's config is needed, and gives concrete pagination guidance: hasMore indicates more items, prefer narrowing filters over paginating, and pass nextPageToken only when every item is needed. This is direct when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use advice.

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