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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning real-time preview, GFM support, and browser-based execution, but omits details such as export options, file handling, or limitations.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately states the tool's core purpose and key features (real-time preview, GFM, browser-based). Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter browser-based editor with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it is, what it supports, and how it runs. It could mention export or editing actions, but the current content is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter semantics dimension is not directly applicable. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to provide or compensate for.

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 identifies the tool as a Markdown editor with real-time preview and GFM support, using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like markdown-to-html by emphasizing editing with preview rather than conversion.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage (editing Markdown with preview) but does not mention exclusions or related tools such as markdown-to-html for conversion tasks.

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