H1-H6 parser

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description adds a concrete operational consequence: it may consume SEO Intellect account limits. This is useful context and does not contraddict annotations, but it could go further in describing async/task behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with purpose front-loaded and no filler. The account-limits caveat is operationally relevant and earns its place.

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 an async task API with two anyOf modes and no output schema, the description omits the task_id continuation workflow and return behavior. An agent cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly from the description alone, despite a rich schema.

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 description itself explains no parameters; schema descriptions cover wait_for_result, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms, task_id, and variant. Required fields like keywords/se/region/depth are mostly inferable from context, though depth remains ambiguous. This lands at the baseline for a well-described 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?

States a specific verb ('Collect') and resource ('page headings from SERP competitors'), and the title 'H1-H6 parser' clarifies the output scope. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like relevant_pages or top_10.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer headers over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the two invocation modes (start a new task vs. resume waiting via task_id). The 'Upstream API tool: headers' line is provenance, not usage guidance.

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