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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool does with the input, whether it returns a list of headings, modifies content, or has side effects, leaving all behavioral traits hidden.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. Repeating the tool name as 'Markdown Toc: Markdown Toc' wastes the only words present and fails to front-load any useful 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, a single vague parameter, and a tautological description, an agent cannot determine what markdown content to provide or what result to expect. The description is wholly inadequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% because the sole 'input' parameter has a generic description 'Input to process'. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 applies, but the tool description adds zero meaning beyond the schema; the parameter remains vague.

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 is 'Markdown Toc: Markdown Toc', which merely restates the tool name and provides no verb, resource, or explanation of functionality. It is a pure tautology and gives an agent no clue that this tool generates a markdown table of contents.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. Given many markdown-related siblings like markdown-table, markdown-lint, and markdown-tool, an agent has no way to distinguish appropriate use cases.

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