doc_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses relevance sorting, version selection logic (latest stable, exact/prefix), and that output includes releaseNote and source fields, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three concise sentences covering purpose, focus usage, and version/return behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains core behavior, parameter nuances, and output fields (releaseNote, source). It is reasonably complete, though it could briefly note its relation to sibling catalog_lookup, but the schema already links id to catalog_lookup.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining focus should be a single concept and version supports prefixes, enhancing what the schema labels only as 'focusing concept' and 'target version'.

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 extracts document segments by entry id, version, and focus, returning them sorted by relevance score. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings catalog_lookup and catalog_releases, which focus on catalog metadata and releases.

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?

It gives practical guidance: focus should describe a single concept, with multiple calls for cross-concept questions, and explains version defaults and prefix support. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the instructions are clear and actionable.

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