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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It indicates a read-only 'extract' operation and specifies output fields, but lacks information on scope (e.g., does 'correspondence' mean the current conversation or all?), sorting, pagination, or empty results. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 of 18 words, directly stating the action, scope, and output. There is no fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description carries full burden. It covers the core functionality and output fields, but omits context like the exact scope of 'correspondence' and how this tool relates to siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional param detail is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource as 'open commitments in the correspondence' with directionality ('owed by you and owed to you') and outputs ('who and by-when'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (generic query) and 'list_right_now' (likely a general list).

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 use when needing open commitments, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among sibling tools. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'search' or 'list_right_now' for commitment-related queries.

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