extract_information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-generation behavior, file format support, and limits. It does not discuss error handling, parameter interaction (e.g., if both schema_path and schema_json are provided), or return value format.

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 well-structured: a brief overview sentence, a paragraph explaining capabilities, and a bullet list of constraints. The 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema but provides a quick summary. One minor inefficiency: the parameter descriptions in 'Args' are nearly verbatim from the schema.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a JSON object? a string?). It covers usage and constraints well but omits return value description and fails to differentiate from the sibling tool. These are notable gaps in completeness.

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%, meaning the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds minimal additional context, such as default values (auto_generate_schema defaults to true) and optional nature. It mostly repeats schema info, so value added is marginal.

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 'Extract structured information from documents', providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'parse_document', the focus on information extraction versus parsing is implied by the name and context.

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?

The description gives useful context like supported file formats, size limits, and page limits. It explains the two modes (schema provided or auto-generated). However, it does not state when to use this tool over the sibling 'parse_document', nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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