wattpad_preview_markup

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

The description says 'No toca la red ni la cuenta' (does not touch the network or account), adding concrete detail beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also explains the kinds of issues it detects (merged paragraphs, literal asterisks, manual separators/images), which gives the agent insight into its behavior. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a paragraph explaining usage and context, and a clear 'Returns:' section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could include an example or error handling detail, but for a preview tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already documents it as 'Markup a comprobar.' The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action: 'Convierte markup a HTML y comprueba que sobrevive la ida y vuelta' (converts markup to HTML and checks round-trip). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are about backup, retrieval, or writing operations; none perform validation or preview.

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 gives a clear 'when to use': 'Uselo ANTES de escribir, sobre todo con texto pegado desde otro editor' (use before writing, especially with pasted text). It provides specific scenarios and problem types it detects, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though none of the siblings serve the same purpose.

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