html_html_headings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature and the exact output structure. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., malformed HTML) or performance traits, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core action and output, and the second adding a usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 (one string input, defined output schema), the description covers the main purpose and output format. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., empty HTML, invalid HTML) but these are minor for a utility tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'html'. The description adds meaning by stating that the HTML input is the source for extraction, but does not provide format or encoding details. Since the parameter is a simple string, the description provides marginal added value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('headings (h1–h6) from HTML') and clearly states the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_tables by focusing solely on headings.

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 provides clear context ('Useful for understanding page structure') which implies the tool is for extracting headings. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to differentiate from other HTML tools.

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