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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by flagging 'Unicode-aware' normalization and advising verification of output before permanent use, hinting the result may not match naive expectations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads. Slightly terse on the return behavior, but every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a verification caveat. The absence of an output schema means return values are undocumented, but the 'inspect output' advice partially compensates.

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%, with both 'text' and 'maxLength' fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the general 'Unicode-aware' framing and no syntax or format detail for the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (convert) and resource (title → Unicode-aware URL slug), making the operation unambiguous. No sibling produces slugs, so it is naturally distinct, but the description does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 clear context: 'Use when forming new path segments from headings,' and adds a precaution about inspecting output before publishing permanent URLs. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but for a single-purpose generator the guidance is sufficient.

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