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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses two important traits: a $0.005 upfront charge and the return of a verification_token that must be passed to extract.confirm. It omits token expiry, failure/refund behavior, and what happens if confirmation never occurs, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and returns, followed by cost and the next step. Each sentence carries distinct information with 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: the token return, the price, and the mandatory confirm step. It leaves some gaps around token lifetime and error behavior, but is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the text input fully. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the text argument, making the baseline 3 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?

"Verified extraction" plus the stated output ("standard entities plus a verification_token") tells the agent what it does and how it differs from the plain extraction siblings by implying a verification step. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from extract.and.fetch or extract.and.summarize, so it stops short of a 5.

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 specifies the required follow-up ("Call extract.confirm with the token to complete the verified flow") and the payment precondition, which is real usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over sibling extractors like extract.and.fetch or extract.and.summarize, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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