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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether input is a raw YAML string, what happens on malformed YAML, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return value looks like. The low risk profile of a pure formatter keeps this from a 1, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 zero waste, which is structurally fine. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a tool with four formatting options, so it cannot score higher.

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 formatter with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits the formatting controls, error behavior, and output shape entirely. An agent can call it with just the required field, but cannot use it well.

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% across 4 parameters, yet the description mentions none of them. The agent gets no help understanding indent (2 vs 4), sortKeys, or lineWidth behavior; only the parameter names, defaults, and the enum hint at their meaning.

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 and resource: "Pretty-print YAML." An agent immediately knows this is a formatting/normalization operation, not a conversion. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like yaml_to_json or json_format, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of the adjacent tools (yaml_to_json, json_format, json_minify). The agent is left to infer from the name alone when this is the right choice.

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