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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite that documents must already be uploaded, which is helpful context, but says nothing about the async/job nature of the operation or what happens on re-runs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficiently sized. It is arguably too terse for a job-creating mutation, but conciseness itself is well executed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a non-read-only job-creation tool with only 33% parameter coverage the description is thin: it omits what the job does, whether it is asynchronous, and how documentKeys are supplied. It leaves the agent with meaningful gaps.

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 only 33%, so only project_slug is documented in the schema. The description gestures at tableSlug and documentKeys via 'documents already uploaded to a table' but adds no format, identifier, or batching semantics to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Start extraction') and resource ('documents already uploaded to a table'), so the agent knows this kicks off processing rather than retrieving results. The phrase 'already uploaded' implicitly distinguishes it from documents.upload, but it does not explicitly contrast with jobs.get or other extraction siblings.

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 phrase 'documents already uploaded' implies the prerequisite that documents must exist before calling, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the alternative jobs.get for checking status.

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