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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: 'owner-scoped' tells the agent results are implicitly filtered to the caller's account, and 'does not retry work or spend credits' rules out side effects an agent might otherwise assume from a history listing.

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, no filler. Scope and filters come first, then the negative side-effect statement, then the sibling routing — exactly the right order for an agent scanning for a selection decision.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, filters and routing. The one gap is pagination behavior (limit default 10, max 25, and how offset interacts), which the description never touches.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it covers the four filter axes (query as filename, schema_slug, status, review_only for failed/review results) but never mentions limit or offset pagination, and it doesn't map its wording to parameter names. Partial compensation only.

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 (find extraction history) plus the exact scope (owner-scoped) and the filter dimensions (filename, schema, status, review-needed/failed). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_extraction, so an agent can choose 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?

'Does not retry work or spend credits' draws a clear boundary against extract_document and dokyumi_preflight_extraction, and 'Use get_extraction for fields, confidence and validation' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of covering export_extractions or list_schemas, but the primary routing decision is resolved.

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