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

The description explicitly states 'no external research or outbound actions,' which directly contradicts the annotation openWorldHint=true. Although it does disclose the price and wallet authorization requirement, the contradiction makes the safety model unreliable.

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 four short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The human-review, price, and payment authorization details are all relevant, and there is no filler.

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?

This is a paid, five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter semantics. Critical invocation details around signatures, expiry, and nested input fields are unexplained, and the open-world contradiction further undermines completeness.

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%, and the description maps no parameters: it never explains input.brief, input.audience, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature, nor the required nested input object. 'Supplied text' is the only clue and does not compensate.

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 states a concrete verb ('Extract'), a precise scope ('explicitly stated organizations, products, places, dates, and business terms'), and an output feature ('evidence snippets'), which distinguishes it from general siblings like structured_extraction and requirements_extraction.

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?

It gives clear context: use this only on buyer-supplied text, with no external research or outbound actions. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use guide.

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