extract_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns structured JSON, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, language limitations, or any edge cases. For a read-only extraction tool this is adequate but minimally transparent.

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 covers the action, the input type, the entity categories, and the output format. Every phrase carries meaning, with 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: it explains the input, the types of entities recognized, and that the result is JSON. It could be more specific about the exact JSON shape or additional options, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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% and the only parameter, 'text', is described in the schema already. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource as 'named entities from text', listing the categories (people, organizations, locations, dates, miscellaneous) and stating the output format. This distinguishes it well from the sibling 'extract' tool, making its specialized function unambiguous.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'extract', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for straightforward entity extraction, but there is no guidance on alternative selection.

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