Review Extraction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It describes the interactive elements (images, bbox overlays, clickable blocks) and actions (verify or flag), but does not disclose side effects or what happens after verification/flagging. This is sufficient for a workflow-opening tool but lacks detail on the consequences of those actions.

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 primary action, and every clause earns its place. The second sentence adds a useful disambiguation without fluff.

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?

The tool is a UI workflow surface with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core interaction and the look-and-feel (bbox overlays, clickable blocks). It omits details on how verification/flagging propagate, but leaves enough for a competent user to decide whether this is the right tool. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (pages and document_id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline. It correctly implies the purpose of the document_id but does not elaborate on pagination or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Open the extraction review workflow') and a specific surface: 'page images with bbox overlays and clickable extracted blocks that can be verified or flagged.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like view_pdf and verify_block, reinforced by the explicit 'not a PDF editor.'

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (for reviewing extractions with visual bboxes) and an explicit exclusion ('not a PDF editor'). However, it does not name any alternative tools for comparison, so the guidance stops short of fully explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative instructions.

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