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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it partially discharges this by listing the JSON fields returned. It says nothing about determinism, latency, permissions, failure modes on low-quality input, or how the 'API #01' label affects behavior.

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 that leads with the verb and then the payload; the parenthetical field list is long but informative. The 'API #01:' prefix is internal noise that occupies the highest-attention position.

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 extractor with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the key compensating information and it is present; parameters are fully covered by the schema. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the many sibling extraction/analysis tools.

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%, so both raw_text and document_type_hint are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, size, or hint-value guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (B2B contracts, SOWs, RFPs) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows this is a broad contract-field extraction rather than a narrow one like extract_pricing_schedule. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies usage by naming the input sources (unstructured contracts/SOWs/RFPs), but it gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never points the agent toward audit_contract_risks, extract_pricing_schedule, or the other sibling extractors for narrower needs.

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