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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what the check covers and the key insight that certain problems are invisible during writing but obvious when reading. It doesn't detail output format or rate limits, but given annotation coverage, the extra context pushes it above baseline.

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 with a clear structure: what it checks, when to call it, and which parameter to pass. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded in the first sentence. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a read-only check tool with complete schema and annotations, the description covers the action, timing, and parameter selection well. The only gap is no explanation of the return value (e.g., whether it returns a list of problems), but since it's a check tool, the output is somewhat implicit and not critical for invocation decisions.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for html, shortId, and editToken. The description adds meaning by explaining when to use html (draft) vs shortId (already-published), which clarifies the primary selection logic. It doesn't explain editToken, but the schema already handles that, so the description adds a modest bonus.

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 ('check an HTML document') with a concrete resource type and lists the exact problem classes it catches (dead links, broken images, placeholder text, blocked http:// references). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_document (retrieval) or publish_document (publishing) by focusing on pre-send validation.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call this BEFORE handing someone a share link.' It also clarifies the two primary input modes (html for drafts, shortId for already-published docs). While it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, the context makes the intended use clear, so it's slightly below the highest bar.

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