nhgis_list_extracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope ('recent') and return fields (numbers, status, timestamps), which adds some behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, ordering, and whether this is a read-only operation (though inferable). It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the purpose and return fields. Zero wasted words, 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields. However, it does not explain pagination behavior or the meaning of 'recent', and lacks any note about authentication or read-only status. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both `pageSize` and `pageNumber`. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it hits the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 ('List') and the resource ('NHGIS extract requests'), and mentions the return fields (extract numbers, status, timestamps). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like `nhgis_get_extract` (which likely fetches a single extract) and `microdata_list_extracts` (which targets microdata), though it does not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for tracking recent submissions, nor does it contrast with `nhgis_get_extract` or note any conditions or prerequisites.

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