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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is browser-based and performs non-mutating actions (detect, check), implying a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the article is modified, what data is sent to servers, or the exact output format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two concise clauses that front-load the core action and scope, then add a parenthetical detail about the browser-based nature. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the fact that it's browser-based. The implied output (detected improvement points) is clear, and no critical missing information is apparent for an agent to invoke or direct a user to it.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds the context that it's a browser-based tool, suggesting user interaction rather than programmatic arguments, which is useful. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 purpose: automatically detecting improvement points for old articles, with specific checks for freshness, structure, and redundancy. This distinguishes it from content generation tools like article-outline-generator, as it focuses on analyzing existing articles rather than creating new ones.

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 old articles needing improvement, providing a clear context for when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as not using it for new articles or comparing it to tools like sales-writing-analyzer, so it stops short of full guidance.

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