Heading Structure Analyzer

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it parses HTML into an H1-H6 outline and explicitly reports missing H1s, multiple H1s, and skipped levels.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action and the flagged conditions front-loaded; no filler 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only analyzer with no output schema, the description adequately covers input and detected issues. It stops short of describing the returned structure or how malformed HTML is handled, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter (html) with 0% schema description coverage, but its meaning is self-evident and the phrase 'from HTML' confirms the input is raw HTML source. No further syntax, encoding, or fragment-vs-document guidance is offered.

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?

States a specific verb pair (extract, flag) and a concrete resource (the H1-H6 outline from HTML), including the exact anomalies it detects. It is clearly distinct from the calculator/generator siblings, though it never names or contrasts with them.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; it only says what the tool does. An agent must infer from the name that this is an SEO/HTML-audit step.

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