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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, and the description goes well beyond by disclosing the two-stage engine (Fast Extraction scout + deterministic readers, then deep-engine rescue), that `engine.runtime` becomes `monolith_rescue` on rescue, that a rescue is billed as delivered, and that a rescue may take minutes. It also states the terminal failure mode (status FAILED with reason), which 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 core extraction scope and the sibling disambiguation are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the operational detail that follows is genuinely actionable rather than filler. It is dense but runs long on pipeline internals, which slightly dilutes the opening.

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?

For a read-only extraction tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is extracted, when to choose it over the never-exceed sibling, the engine fallback path, billing implications, the recommended 10-minute client timeout, and the FAILED outcome. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (documentPath, partName) are documented in the schema, including the https-only constraint, so the description need not repeat them and does not. It adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Extract DC electrical characteristics') and enumerates exactly which quantities are returned: VIH/VIL/VOH/VOL thresholds, Schmitt hysteresis, and the VCC/VDD supply range. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling extract_absolute_max, so an agent can route between the two 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?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Use this for supply-range questions; extract_absolute_max gives never-exceed limits,' which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs against the closest sibling. It does not address other plausible neighbors such as extract_power_domains or extract_analog_specs, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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