gemini_extract_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Extract structured data' and gives no clue about side effects, permissions, limitations, or processing behavior. The agent cannot anticipate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has special constraints. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), which could be seen as concise, but it under-specifies the tool's capabilities and usage. It does not add sufficient value for an agent to effectively decide when to use it. This is under-specification rather than concise efficiency.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere), the tool has four parameters and sits among many similar tools. The description lacks context about what types of structured data can be extracted, how to choose extract_type, and when to use this tool versus siblings. This makes the description incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately. The description does not clarify the relationship between extract_type and custom_fields, or provide examples, but it meets the baseline since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 action ('Extract') and resource ('structured data from text'), giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gemini_extract_tables_tool or gemini_analyze_text_tool, which also involve extraction/analysis. It earns a 4 because it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema. This is a significant gap, especially given the many overlapping Gemini tools.

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