netintel_extract_contact

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 the underlying model (Claude Haiku) and the exact output shape, which is useful context. It says nothing about behavior on sparse or ambiguous input, multi-contact handling, latency/cost implications, or what happens when a field is absent, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the output contract, in a single dense sentence with no filler. The trailing ellipsis indicates the text is truncated, so the full definition may not be as tight as the visible portion.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields. For a one-parameter, read-only extraction tool with no annotations, the visible text covers purpose, input sources, and return shape adequately, though error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 0% and the single 'text' parameter has no description. The description partially compensates by indicating the accepted input forms (raw text, email signature, webpage text), but says nothing about size limits, whether HTML is acceptable, or how multiple contacts in one input are handled.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (structured contact details), names the accepted input forms (text, email signature, webpage text), and enumerates the returned fields (name, title, company, email, phone, address). This clearly separates it from siblings like netintel_entity_extract, netintel_extract_resume, and netintel_extract_invoice.

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 clause 'so agents can turn unstructured contact blocks into CRM-ready…' implies the intended scenario, and the listed input sources hint at when the tool fits. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative for adjacent cases such as general entity extraction or resume/invoice parsing, so usage is only implied.

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