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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context of its own—no mention of how extraction works, what output is produced, or any constraints—so it falls short even against the lowered bar when annotations are present.

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 short but includes non-functional branding ('freedailypro') that does not help the agent. It is not front-loaded with actionable information, and the single sentence leaves the core operation underspecified.

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 tool that extracts emails from input text, the description omits what the input should look like, whether it operates on a string or URL, and what the output format is. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for reliable 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 single required parameter 'text' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what 'text' represents or how it is used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, so the agent must guess the input format.

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 names an 'email extractor,' which gives a broad verb and resource. However, it adds irrelevant branding ('client and server side from freedailypro') and never specifies the input source or scope, leaving the purpose vague. It also does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling extract_urls.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_urls or other text-processing tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for choosing it correctly.

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