Heading Structure

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaning by detailing evaluation criteria (empty headings, skipped levels, question phrasing), the returned score/grade/findings, and the output format options, going beyond the safety hints.

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 well-organized with clear sections (explanation, Args, Returns, Example) and is appropriately sized for an agent-facing tool. It loses a point because the Returns block largely duplicates the output schema, adding minor redundancy, and the example could suffice without the full return payload listing.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs it expects, what it returns, and offers a concrete invocation example, leaving no critical gap for agent selection or 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's Args section mostly restates the schema's parameter names, types, defaults, and formats without adding new meaning. The example invocation does demonstrate argument binding, but does not elevate the semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Extract the full h1–h6 outline and evaluate it' and enumerates specific checks (h1 count, level skips, empty tags, question headings), clearly distinguishing it from generic content or meta audit tools. The verb+resource combination is specific and actionable.

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 does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not to use, but it provides clear context by noting the question-heading signal is useful for featured snippets and AI citations. This implies an SEO/visibility use case without explicit exclusions, which fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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