extract_parties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers. It discloses cross-tradition reading, the anchor behavior, and the practical insight that the Arabic representative clause is often the only place the signatory is named. It stops short of describing output structure or failure modes, but the behavioral traits it reveals are specific and useful.

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 first sentence front-loads the complete list of extracted entities, and the second sentence adds essential format-recognition nuance without fluff. Every clause earns its place, including the Arabic terminology, which is necessary for correctly recognizing the target structures. It avoids repeating schema content.

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 description is rich enough for an agent to invoke the tool on the right document and understand what it returns at a semantic level. However, there is no output schema, so the exact return structure (e.g., fields, nesting, anchor representation) is not specified. This is a minor gap given the detailed entity enumeration.

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 100%, and the single parameter (path) is already well documented in the schema, including accepted formats and content-based detection. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a precise resource: parties, defined terms, roles, registration identifiers, addresses, signatories, titles, and anchors. This clearly differentiates it from sibling extraction tools like extract_dates and find_clauses. There is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives clear context on the two drafting traditions the tool handles, including the English bracketed defined term and the Arabic ordinal block with representative clause. This helps an agent decide when this tool fits a document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the contextual guidance is strong.

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