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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: timing (available before completion), pagination behavior (truncated flag), access scope (own extractions with API key, public community extractions), and length caveat. This exceeds the typical transparency bar and gives agents a clear operational model.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, timing+access, and paging. Front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy. Perfectly sized for its 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?

Given 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (raw text), when it's usable, how to handle long transcripts, and authentication scope. It anticipates likely agent questions and leaves little ambiguity.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the paging workflow: pass offset and max_chars when truncated is true. This ties parameters to a behavioral pattern not evident from the schema alone, elevating it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the raw source transcript (or article/PDF text) of a CoreWise extraction by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like extract_url (creation), get_extraction (metadata), and search_public_extractions (search). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides strong when-to-use guidance: 'Available as soon as the extraction has been initialized — no need to wait for completed' and explains paging with offset and max_chars. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context implies using this for transcript content versus other tools for metadata or search. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead' statement, so not a 5.

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