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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses extractive summarization (no paraphrasing), returns sentences in original order, and provides top keywords, which are helpful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential limitations like sensitivity to punctuation, handling of very short texts, or whether the output is deterministic, which could be important for user expectations.

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?

The description is concise, one sentence, and front-loads the key action ('Extractive text summarization') followed by method and output. Every word earns its place without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, method, output, and keyword feature. It lacks details on edge cases or output format, but the absence of an output schema means a brief description might suffice. It is complete for basic usage.

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 the description adds context by explaining that it scores sentences by keyword frequency and returns top sentences, which implies how max_sentences is used. The description does not add new details about parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., default for max_sentences is in schema). Since schema is thorough, 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 clearly states it performs extractive text summarization, specifies the method (keyword frequency), and notes it returns important sentences in original order plus top 10 keywords. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'legal_simplifier' and 'detect_language' by focusing on extractive summarization rather than translation or simplification.

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 for summarization tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like legal_simplifier or detect_language. It does not provide exclusions or prerequisites, such as requiring English text or being suitable for short texts. However, the clear purpose offers some guidance on appropriate scenarios.

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