ai_extract_info

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

There are no annotations to fall back on, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level action without disclosing behavioral aspects such as whether it uses AI, requires OCR, handles scanned PDFs, or what output format is returned. This is a significant gap for an extraction tool.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core function without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the returned structured data looks like or any prerequisites. It does not mention return format, performance characteristics, or limitations, making it incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a complex structured result.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'file' as 'Absolute path to the PDF file', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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 'structured information (entities, dates, numbers) from a PDF', making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It helps differentiate from siblings like extract_tables or get_page_text by naming entity/date/number extraction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for structured information extraction but does not mention exclusions, use cases, or alternative tools like get_page_text or extract_tables, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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