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

Annotations cover safety (destructive=false, readOnly=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: a per-call price of $0.002 in USDC on Base via x402, and that the charge applies only on success. It does not mention non-idempotency or any rate/length failure behavior beyond the schema's character cap.

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 short sentences, no filler: output shape first, then intended use cases, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most decision-relevant content is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return format as a Markdown outline with headings and bullets. Together with cost disclosure and full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to call it, though error/latency behavior is unstated.

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 100% — the schema already documents 'text' (text or topic, up to 12,000 chars) and 'depth' (heading levels 1-3, default 2). The description adds no syntax, format, or interplay detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: produces a structured Markdown outline (headings and bullet points) from either supplied text or a topic. The output format is named, and the 'text or topic' dual input mode makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like ai_summarize-text or ai_rewrite.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts ('plan articles, reports, talks and documentation'), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer ai_summarize-text for condensing rather than structuring), so it does not reach the 5 bar.

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