extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the provider dependency (STRUCTURED_EXTRACT_PROVIDER, default fake), the fake provider's limitation to repo examples, and that failures raise a tool error rather than returning placeholder JSON. However, it says nothing about the shape of a successful result or any cost/latency/auth characteristics.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the capability sentence comes first, followed by the provider caveat and error behavior. No filler, though the provider detail is somewhat implementation-flavored.

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 2-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers error behavior and provider caveats but omits the successful return shape and the valid values for 'schema'. An agent could call it, but not confidently about the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does assign roles (JSON validated against 'schema', sourced from 'text'). It still leaves ambiguity about whether 'schema' is an inline JSON string or a schema name from list_schemas, and gives no format detail for either parameter.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource: 'Extract validated JSON for schema from text'. That is clear and distinguishable from the sibling list_schemas, which enumerates rather than extracts, though the description never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of list_schemas as the way to obtain a valid schema value. Usage is only implied by the parameter pairing.

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