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

The description states 'no external research or outbound actions', but the annotation openWorldHint=true implies the tool may use external information, which is a direct contradiction. It also mentions 'Returns a draft for human review' and 'Payment requires explicit wallet authorization', but does not clarify the destructiveHint=true annotation. The contradiction overrides any positive behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome. It includes necessary pricing/payment details without being verbose. Slight redundancy ('Uses buyer-supplied information only' and 'no external research') but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has a nested input object, 5 parameters, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level output ('draft for human review') but omits the return format, error behavior, and how the payment fields relate to execution. With zero schema coverage, this is insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It only refers to 'supplied text' which maps loosely to source_text, but does not clarify 'brief', 'audience', or the payment/result parameters (idempotency_key, result_signature, etc.). The agent would struggle to correctly populate the input object without additional guidance.

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 specific verb ('extract'), a specific resource ('functional and nonfunctional requirements from supplied text'), and adds outcome details (source references, unresolved ambiguities, draft for review). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like entity_extraction or structured_extraction, which target different content types.

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?

The description specifies constraints ('Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions') and discloses a cost and authorization requirement, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose clarity partially compensates.

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