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

The description reveals paid credits, the prepare prerequisite, required authorization, and recovery semantics tied to requestId. These details go well beyond the annotations and align with idempotentHint true. No contradiction with annotations is apparent.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler: purpose, cost, prerequisites, and recovery behavior are each given one concise line. The most important operational details are front-loaded.

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?

Combined with the input schema, annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers input shape, required prepare call, cost cap, credits, auth, billing behavior, and recovery. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

requestId and maxPriceMicroUsd already have schema descriptions, while input.html only has type and maxLength. The description adds the 200-heading limit but does not explain expected HTML input semantics or error behavior, leaving the input parameter partially undercompensated.

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 verb and resource: extract headings from HTML, up to 200, with parent indices and skipped-level indicators. This clearly distinguishes the tool from other html_* siblings by naming its exact output and limits.

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 intended use is clear: extract headings when that structure is needed, with a clear prerequisite to call agent_utilities_prepare first. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is otherwise strong.

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