extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether extraction is model-driven, how it behaves on non-conforming or missing fields, whether it errors or returns partial results, or any cost/latency 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the output contract is stated up front. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested schema parameter, the definition is too thin. It should at minimum explain the 'hint' parameter, the expected JSON Schema shape, and failure behavior when extraction cannot satisfy the schema.

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 3 parameters. The description echoes 'text' and 'schema' and adds one useful constraint (the schema must be type: object), but the third parameter 'hint' is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (fields from text) plus the output contract (an object matching a JSON Schema). The phrase 'from text' implicitly separates it from extract_file, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as extract_file for file inputs or classify/summarize for other tasks. The only routing signal is the incidental 'from text' phrasing.

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