Extract Keyphrases

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 two real behavioral traits: output is scored and frequency-aware, and granularity is controlled by n-gram settings. It says nothing about how diversity affects results, whether extraction is deterministic, or what constraints apply to input size, so significant behavior remains undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent how to set diversity, top_k, or min_occurrences to get sensible results.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Configurable n-gram size' loosely maps to min_ngram/max_ngram, but texts, top_k, diversity, and min_occurrences get no explanation at all — a user cannot know what diversity controls from either source.

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 gives a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('keyphrases') plus two distinguishing qualities: results are scored and frequency-aware, and n-gram size is configurable. It never contrasts itself with near siblings like extract_topics or keyphrases_to_tags, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which extractor to pick.

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, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites such as input length limits. The agent must infer that this is the keyphrase extractor versus the topic extractor purely from the name.

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