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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the exact set of checks and that a 'clean' flag is true when no issues are found, compensating partly for the missing output schema. It does not state read-only/write semantics, error behavior, or how issues are reported.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the enumerated checks in one efficient sentence. The trailing promotional note about free trial calls is sales noise but is short and could signal a cost/auth condition.

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 lint utility with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the success flag, but omits parameter usage and the shape of returned issues, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the two parameters (text, input) are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions them, leaving the agent unable to tell which parameter to supply or whether both are 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?

States a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('Markdown') and enumerates the exact lint rules (tab indentation, trailing whitespace, missing final newline, 3+ blank lines, TODO markers), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like x402-markdown-tool. It never names or contrasts a sibling, so it stops short of 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other markdown/text-normalization siblings, and nothing about prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the name and the list of checks.

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