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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it detects multi-value headers and masks Authorization values, which is important for interpreting output. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but for this tool the added behavioral context is solid.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most relevant behavioral details. There is no filler, and each clause adds useful 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?

The description is complete enough for a two-parameter parsing tool with a full schema and an output schema. The optional security audit is described with examples of checked headers. The only notable omission is routing guidance relative to similar security-header siblings.

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%, and both parameters are clearly documented in the schema. The description adds behavior around multi-value headers and security auditing but does not add syntax or constraints for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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: parsing a raw HTTP headers block into structured JSON. It also names notable behaviors (multi-value detection, Authorization masking, optional security-header audit). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as security_headers_check or web_security_audit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: it is for raw HTTP header blocks. The description does not state when to choose this over security_headers_check or web_security_audit, nor does it give exclusions or routing guidance. That is adequate but leaves the agent to infer sibling selection.

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