summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the method (extractive, not abstractive), output brevity, and a quota cost of 1 call, which is meaningful operational context. However, it omits input length limits, truncation behavior, and any permission requirements.

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 crisp sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost caveat trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential what, method, and cost. Only minor behavioral details (input size limits, failure cases) are absent.

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 'text' and 'sentences' are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description's 'short' hints at the sentences default of 3 but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (return) and resource (short extractive summary of text), and the word 'extractive' pins down the technique, which implicitly separates it from word_count and extract_keywords. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose this over word_count or extract_keywords, and no preconditions are stated. The only qualifying note is a cost warning ('PREMIUM: consumes 1 free-quota call'), which is billing information rather than usage guidance.

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