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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the degraded-mode behavior (keyword rules when no model is on the server) and the trust model for the returned vocabulary/instructions. It does not mention max input size or rate/limit behavior, and the reference to 'mode "rules"' is slightly opaque since no such parameter exists in the schema.

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 first three sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the final sentence is a long compound thought that mixes fallback behavior, return payload, and agent instructions, making it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still adds enough about extraction scope, provenance quotes, and the rules fallback for an agent to call it correctly and use the result. The main remaining gap is input-side guidance for prd_text.

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% for the single parameter prd_text, and the description does not describe its expected format or the 60,000-character limit. It does usefully describe the output shape (requirements quoting source sentences) but says little about the input itself.

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+resource ('Turn PRD or spec text into structured requirements') and enumerates the extracted dimensions (scale, capabilities, compliance, regions, budget). It explicitly bounds scope ('without planning') and names the sibling that combines both steps, so it is distinguishable from recommend_stack and plan_stack 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 positions the tool against recommend_stack ('does both in one call') and against plan_stack ('for plan_stack, without planning'), and adds a workflow rule: show extracted requirements to the user for confirmation before planning. It also tells the assistant to prefer doing extraction itself and treat the rules output as a starting point.

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