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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 0.01 USD price, explicit wallet authorization requirement, preservation of inline Markdown, and fenced-code exclusion. The destructiveHint annotation is explained by the paid, wallet-authorized nature of the call, so there is no direct contradiction.

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 four concise sentences with the core function front-loaded. The price and wallet-authorization warning are necessary given the non-read-only, paid nature of the tool, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 core extraction semantics are present, but the tool has no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and payment/signature infrastructure that is never mapped to actual parameters. An agent cannot determine how to authorize payment, how to set signatures, or what the result envelope looks like, so the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the five parameters. It only clarifies the core markdown input and vaguely mentions wallet authorization; result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature are left unexplained, which is insufficient for constructing a correct paid call.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Extract ATX headings with levels and source line numbers from Markdown.' It also states exclusions (fenced code blocks) and unsupported heading types, which clearly distinguishes it from the many content-generation and text-utility siblings.

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 clearly delimits when the tool applies: it handles ATX headings, ignores fenced code blocks, leaves inline Markdown intact, and explicitly excludes Setext and container-nested headings. It does not name an alternative tool or phrase the conditions as 'use this when...', so it stops just short of full usage guidance.

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