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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that it 'NEVER writes anything; pure parse + analysis' and details the return structure (ok, errors, warnings, parsed counts), including non-blocking warnings like unresolved cross-refs. This fully covers side effects and output semantics.

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 dense but front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage. It lists many parsed field names and warning types, which is useful but slightly verbose. Every sentence contributes relevant information, though a more concise version could omit some enumerated counts.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains the return value shape, the read-only safety profile, the usage context, and a key behavioral constraint (workspace-gated resolution). This is exceptionally complete for a validation tool of this complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the markdown parameter, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond referencing the same markdown surface, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 it is a 'Pre-flight check on markdown BEFORE writing it via update_doc / append_doc_section' and explicitly says 'NEVER writes anything; pure parse + analysis.' This specific verb and resource distinction sets it apart from sibling write tools and other validators.

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 says to use it 'when iterating on rich-format markdown to catch problems before burning a write' and positions it as a precursor to update_doc/append_doc_section. It also notes that cross-ref resolution is gated on the caller's accessible workspace set, which informs when and how to use the tool.

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