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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context that this tool returns a specification, not data, and points to a web URL for the same content, which helps set expectations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 one dense paragraph but each sentence adds value: the exclusivity of the format, the action to take, the content covered, and a reference link. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient and front-loaded with critical information.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and simple tool nature, the description fully tells an agent what it will get (the specification) and how to use it. Nothing essential 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the description only needs to convey what the tool returns, which it does thoroughly. With no parameters, a high score is justified because the description explains the tool's purpose and output fully.

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 it is the AHM v1.0 specification, the only accepted rich-text format, and lists what it covers (vocabulary, attributes, escaping, example). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by being a reference tool rather than a mutation tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read this once before writing or editing rich text, and notes that markdown and HTML are rejected. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use (for non-rich-text operations).

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