ner_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions output includes confidence scores, but omits crucial details: whether the tool is read-only, if it requires specific authentication, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or side effects from this description alone.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The verb+resource pattern is front-loaded. Every sentence adds unique information: first sentence states action and domain, second sentence lists notable outputs.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning confidence scores but does not detail the structure of extracted entities (e.g., format, nesting, or error scenarios). It is adequate for a simple extraction tool but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining what the extraction produces (specific entity types and confidence scores), which clarifies the purpose of the 'entityTypes' filter parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'medical named entities from clinical text'. It lists specific entity types (ICD-10, CPT, dates, medications, and 12 entity types) with confidence scores, distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_lookup or drug_lookup which are lookups rather than extractions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state when not to use it or provide references to sibling tools. The context is implied by the extraction focus, but no proactive help for agent selection.

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