list_extractions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the return format (metadata fields), sorting order (newest first), and user scoping, which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a valuable pointer to the sibling. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return metadata and sorting. It also provides the key alternative for deeper details. The optional filters are fully described in the schema, making this description sufficient.

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 all four optional parameters, so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline 3.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'past extraction log entries' and scope 'for the authenticated user'. It also distinguishes from the sibling get_extraction by noting that get_extraction provides full details, making the purpose of this tool clear.

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?

It explicitly names get_extraction as the alternative for full details, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (listing metadata) vs. sibling. It also implies that this tool is for log/history retrieval.

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