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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clarifies the scope (schemas, type definitions, interfaces, data models from documentation) but does not disclose return format, read-only nature, or limitations. This is a neutral score given the absence of contradictions.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and resource scope in a compact form.

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 simple one-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description covers the core purpose, but it omits guidance on result contents, error behavior, or how to choose among sibling tools. This leaves some gaps for an agent navigating the documentation-tool set.

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% — the 'query' parameter is already described as 'Schema or type to find.' The tool description adds value by enumerating additional artifact types (interfaces, data models) but does not substantially extend beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and a clear resource ('data schemas, type definitions, interfaces, and data models') from 'documentation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs or query_source, which focus on broad search or source code.

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 by naming the artifact types and source, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_docs or query_source, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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