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 discloses pricing, finality of payments, no-refund policy, and the HTTP 402 behavior until payment is presented. However, it does not describe the output format or explicitly state that the tool is read-only, so it is not fully transparent.

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 repetitive and not front-loaded: payment terms are stated twice, and the actual purpose is buried inside an untrusted-provider block at the end. The core 'Lints Markdown...' sentence is the most valuable part but arrives late and is wrapped in third-party content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain both parameters and the return shape. It covers purpose and payment behavior but omits parameter semantics, expected output, and any usage constraints beyond cost. This is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that the `markdown` parameter is the text to lint, but it never names parameters or explains `maxLineLength`. The mention of 'long lines' is the only indirect hint at line-length configuration, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently set parameters.

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 untrusted-provider listing clearly states 'Lints Markdown for trailing whitespace, hard tabs, long lines, heading jumps, missing image alt text, bare URLs and unclosed code fences.' This is a specific verb plus resource with enumerated behaviors. It distinguishes the tool from its unrelated siblings and leaves no doubt about what it does.

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 whenever Markdown needs linting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives. Since none of the sibling tools are Markdown linters, the lack of alternative routing is less damaging, but the guidance is still only implicit.

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