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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the output is 'normalized' but never states whether the original input is mutated or a new string is returned, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the caller gets back. For a transformation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the specifics are packed into the parenthetical. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: return behavior, enum options, defaults, and edge-case handling. The simple nature of the tool limits the damage, but an agent still lacks key information.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, and it does partially: the three named normalizations map onto listMarker, trimTrailing and collapseBlankLines. However it never explains the accepted marker values (the enum in the schema), the defaults, or what the required 'input' parameter expects.

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 a specific verb ('Normalize') and resource ('Markdown'), and the parenthetical enumerates the transformations (list markers, trailing whitespace, blank lines), which distinguishes it from siblings like markdown_preview or markdown_to_html that convert rather than clean up. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, keeping it below 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?

There is no indication of when to reach for this tool versus markdown_preview or markdown_to_html, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer the intended use case from the one-line purpose.

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