Content Extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it uses Gemini's response_json_schema for guaranteed structured output, which tells the agent the output reliability and mechanism.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and then add the key implementation detail. There is no filler or repetition, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

With a fully described input schema and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. It provides enough context for an agent to know this is a read-only structured extraction tool, though it could mention practical limits or content-type applicability.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: extract structured data from content using a JSON Schema. This clearly distinguishes it from generic content analysis or media tools, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternatives like content_analyze or web_extract.

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 when structured extraction is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer from the presence of the required schema parameter that this is the right choice over content_analyze.

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