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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the transform is deterministic and involves no AI, and includes pricing information ($0.01 per call). Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description complements these without contradiction.

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 at a few sentences, front-loading the core purpose and transformation details. Every sentence adds value (purpose, behavior, pricing). No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but context indicates it exists), the description covers all essential aspects: conversion process, output format, determinism, pricing, and linting. An agent has sufficient information to decide usage.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (html and name). The description reiterates the html purpose and adds that headings, paragraphs, etc. are lifted, but does not provide substantial new semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it converts static HTML into a Shopify theme section, specifying the exact transformation (headings, paragraphs, etc. into {{ section.settings.* }} references and a matching {% schema %}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_lint_liquid which lints Liquid code rather than converting HTML.

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 converting static HTML to a Shopify section, and mentions the output is immediately editable in the Shopify theme editor, indicating the intended context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like post_schema_generate or other Shopify-related tools.

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