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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Browser-based tool' and 'テンプレート付き', but does not elaborate on output format, limitations, or data handling. This is a non-mutating generator, so minimal disclosure is acceptable, but some behavioral aspects remain unstated.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that communicates the core transformation (keyword → heading structure), a key feature (templates), and an operational note (browser-based). Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's low complexity, empty schema, and lack of output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose, a key feature, and operational context. It does not specify details like heading count or template variety, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'KW入力' (keyword input), which clarifies the intended user input even though no formal parameter exists. This aligns with the tool's interactive browser-based nature.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it takes a keyword input and automatically suggests H2/H3 heading structures. The verb '提案' (suggest) and resource 'H2/H3見出し構成' (H2/H3 heading structure) are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like chapter-list-generator or meta-description-generator.

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 description implies usage for article outlining via keyword input but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer when to invoke it, but there is no explicit guidance.

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