Pipepost

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 key behavioral traits: the tool performs quality issue auditing, has a free basic mode and a paid full mode requiring credits, and is intended for pre-publishing use. However, it lacks details on what specific quality issues are checked, error handling, rate limits, or output format. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no 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 front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, and the second adds critical context about free vs. paid modes. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidelines, but it's efficiently written.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, basic vs. full modes, and pre-publishing context, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, specific quality metrics, or return values. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and output expectations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'full') thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying that 'full' analysis requires credits and includes 'readability, structure, tags, and heading hierarchy,' which slightly elaborates beyond the schema's description of 'full' as 'Run full analysis (requires credits).' However, this is minimal enhancement, aligning with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose: 'Audit markdown for quality issues before publishing.' It specifies the resource (markdown content) and the action (audit for quality issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'seo_score' or 'check_links' that might also analyze content, though the focus on 'markdown' and 'quality issues' provides some distinction.

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 implies usage context: 'before publishing' suggests it's for pre-publication checks. It also mentions 'basic FREE, full analysis requires credits,' which hints at when to use the 'full' parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'seo_score' or 'check_links,' nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond credit requirements.

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