extract_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches stored local information' which implies a read-only operation, but does not detail side effects, limitations, or what exactly 'stored local information' means. It adds modest context beyond the schema, but is not fully 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 extremely concise: two sentences total, with the first stating the purpose and the second describing the parameter. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the input, but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the paper must have been previously stored locally) or what happens if the ID is not found. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to. A 4 is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: it specifies that 'paper_id' is 'The unique short ID of the paper.' This clarifies the format and uniqueness, which goes beyond the schema's title and type. This compensates well for the lack of schema 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 tool searches for stored local information about a specific paper by its ID. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('information about a paper'), and the sibling tool 'search_papers' likely searches across papers, implying a distinction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. It only implicitly suggests use when a paper ID is available, but lacks explicit usage context.

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