Extract Structured Data

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential side effects, rate limits, or resource requirements. It does not clarify what happens if multiple input sources are supplied or whether extraction is deterministic. Minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 states the tool's purpose and primary input options in under 20 words. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and no unnecessary context.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It clarifies the required extraction_schema and input alternatives, but does not mention what the return value looks like, how to structure the extraction schema, or the meaning of advanced options. It is minimally sufficient for basic use but leaves significant gaps for complex scenarios.

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 all 13 parameters are individually documented. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the three input modes (file_content_base64, file_url, full_text) but does not explain settings like tier, annotate, chunk_size, or parser_config beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Extract') and names the resource ('structured data from a file, file URL, or raw text'), and it mentions the key input modes. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling parse tools like lyzr_parse_pdf or lyzr_parse_text, though the 'according to an extraction schema' clause hints at a different use case.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as lyzr_parse_text or lyzr_parse_pdf. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond the basic extraction action, leaving the agent to infer when this specific tool is appropriate.

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