content_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost model (free basic, paid full) and the return format. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the nature of an audit implies no destructive side effects.

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: two paragraphs with no fluff. Every sentence adds value—purpose, checks, cost, return format, common errors. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's functionality, cost, return format, and common error. Without an output schema, it adequately describes the return object. It could mention handling of invalid or empty content, but overall it is complete for an audit 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value by explaining what 'full' does (readability, structure, tags, heading hierarchy) and what basic provides (counts, summary). It also details the return object structure.

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 clearly states the verb 'audit' and the resource 'markdown article', listing specific checks (heading hierarchy, paragraph length, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on content quality rather than SEO or publishing.

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 explains when to use basic vs full audit based on credit cost and mentions a common error (PAYMENT_REQUIRED). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the context of pre-publish quality is clear.

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