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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only lists extraction types without describing output format, error handling, rate limits, or its read-only nature. The description adds no behavior beyond the operation itself, leaving a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, focused sentence that starts with the imperative 'Extract', making its purpose immediately clear. It contains no redundant details or filler, earning a high score for conciseness and front-loading.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of entities, a structured object, or how 'statistics' are presented). It also fails to note any limitations or edge-case handling. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves the description incomplete for an agent to predict all behavior.

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?

The input schema has a single required 'text' string, and the description mentions 'from text', which gives some context about the parameter. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameter constraints, format expectations, or additional semantics. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 the tool extracts citation-related entities (URLs, paper refs, DOIs, arXiv IDs, statistics) from text, using the specific verb 'Extract' and a well-defined resource list. This distinguishes it from siblings like probe_url and verify_citations, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 the tool is used when one needs to extract these entities from text, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to sibling tools like probe_url/verify_citations.

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