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

Annotations already declare that this is read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it answers only from the referenced document (scoping/grounding) and returns a list. It does not discuss limits, rate limits, or handling of ambiguous requests, so it falls 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and ending with the sibling redirect. No filler, no repetition of title or annotations.

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?

With annotations covering safety profile, an output schema covering return structure, and full schema descriptions for both parameters, the description only needs to state purpose, usage, and grounding scope — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry precise descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a bit of flavor by listing extractable kinds (names, dates, figures, action items), but it does not embellish parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('one of their Xenition documents'), and it enumerates concrete extraction types (names, dates, figures, action items, tasks). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling query_document by contrasting list-style extraction with free questions.

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 an explicit usage condition ('when the user wants a specific kind of information pulled out ... as a list') and names the exact alternative for the other case ('To ask a free question about it, use query_document'). This is a textbook when-to-use/when-to-use-sibling routing rule.

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