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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it names the engine used, explains the Fast Extraction pipeline, discloses the automatic fallback to the slower deep engine (engine.runtime = monolith_rescue), warns that a rescue can take minutes and advises a 10-minute client timeout, and states the exact FAILED condition with billing implications. That is exactly the latency, cost and failure-mode context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and the sibling distinction are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the operational detail follows in a logical order. The middle passage is dense and semicolon-chained, and phrases like 'the same normalization and completion checks as a dashboard job' are padding, but nothing is redundant or misordered.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% parameter documentation, the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: what the extraction contains, latency expectations, timeout guidance, fallback behavior, and terminal failure semantics. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The description says nothing about documentPath or partName; both are fully documented in the schema, including the https-only restriction and the multi-part disambiguation role. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema does the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (Absolute Maximum Ratings) and immediately enumerates the contents: never-exceed supply/pin voltages, max currents, storage temperatures. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling extract_logic_levels, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for operating supply ranges and names extract_logic_levels as the alternative, which is strong when-to-use guidance. The gap is that it never mentions the closely related sibling extract_thermal_limits, leaving a plausible source of confusion (stress temperatures vs. thermal limits) unresolved.

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