outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context beyond annotations—that output includes page anchors and that the tool is a precursor to extraction—but offers no detail on return format, limits, or error 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?

Twelve words in two sentences, with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage hint in the second. Every word 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 a simple read-only, idempotent listing tool with only one required parameter, the description covers the essential ground: what it returns (headings, bookmarks, page anchors) and when to run it (before extract). Since no output schema exists, the return description partially compensates. The main gap is the un-documentd 'source'/'password' semantics, which is likely shared across the sibling family but still left to inference.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never explains what 'source' refers to or what 'password' unlocks. The only implicit hint is that source is a document containing headings and page anchors. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('headings and bookmarks with page anchors'), clearly distinguishing it from reading content (read_page), extracting tables (extract_tables), or converting format (to_markdown). The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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?

'Use before extract' provides clear workflow context by positioning this tool as the precursor to extraction. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the placement guidance is explicit enough for an agent to sequence correctly.

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