get_extraction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return fields (document type, OCR provider, status, timestamp), which is helpful. However, it does not describe edge-case behavior such as what happens when an invalid or nonexistent extraction_id is provided (e.g., error, null response), nor does it state any read-only guarantee or prerequisite beyond having the ID.

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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It states the action, the resource, the identifier, and the expected return fields without any filler or redundant information. Front-loaded and efficiently sized.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and explicitly lists the returned fields, which is essential since there is no output schema. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g., error on bad ID) and explicit exclusions, but those are minor for a simple read operation.

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% description coverage for the single parameter extraction_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating that it's a log ID, and the schema already explains its origin from list_extractions. The description's phrase 'by its log ID' aligns with the schema without adding new meaning.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('metadata for a specific past extraction'), and the identifier ('by its log ID'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools: 'list_extractions' lists all extractions, while this tool retrieves a specific one by ID.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need metadata for a single extraction identified by its log ID, as opposed to listing all extractions. The schema description for extraction_id reinforces that it is returned by list_extractions, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the 'specific' vs. 'list' distinction is clear.

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