extract_break_clause

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: false) already declare safe read-only behavior, and the description adds the behavioral detail of returning verbatim text and a source span, or found=false when absent. It also includes 'Decision-support only,' which signals its role as an analytical aid. The description is consistent with the annotations, providing extra context without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that packs essential information: extraction action, input reference, output details, and fallback behavior. There is no wasted wording, and each clause adds value. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one string parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the tool's function and return behavior. It covers the core purpose, the input, and the failure case (found=false), which is important. It does not need to elaborate on output format since the output schema exists, and the description is complete for this level of complexity.

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 only parameter, lease_text, is described implicitly through 'lease document,' indicating it should contain the lease text. However, the schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on input format, length, or preconditions. The parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal meaning beyond that.

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's function: extracting the tenant break clause from a lease document, with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('tenant break clause'). It also specifies the return format (verbatim text and source span, or found=false), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, the unique extraction task distinguishes it from check_conditions, find_citation, and assess_validity.

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 for extracting a specific clause but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Decision-support only' is a caveat about usage context, not a comparison with sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the usage guidance is limited to what's self-evident.

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