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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond them: 'Answers only from that document,' which tells the agent output is grounded to the source and not generalized, consistent with openWorldHint=false. It does not describe behavior when the requested item is absent, keeping it just short of a 5.

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, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger, routing to the sibling, and the grounding constraint. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ('names, dates, figures, action items') loosely illustrate the 'what' parameter but add no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema's own examples.

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 (extract) plus resource (one of their Xenition documents) and names the output shape (as a list), with concrete examples of extractable kinds (names, dates, figures, action items). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling query_document explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants a specific kind of information pulled out... as a list') and an explicit alternative with its own condition ('To ask a free question about it, use query_document'). No inference required from the agent.

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