check_headings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the specific checks performed, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens on inaccessible pages, or any error/response behavior beyond the listed checks.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then lists the key checks, making every clause purposeful.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers what it does, but since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the returned analysis looks like. It does not describe the structure or format of results, leaving a small completeness 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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (URL to analyze headings). The description does not add extra meaning about URL formats, constraints, or usage details, so it provides no value beyond the schema for parameter semantics.

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 extracts and analyzes heading hierarchy (H1-H6) from a page. It also lists concrete checks (missing H1, multiple H1s, skipped levels, heading-to-content ratio), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_page or validate_schema.

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 use when heading hierarchy analysis is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on alternatives or conditions for non-use.

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