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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that script/style content is ignored, normalization is limited to documented artifacts, and payment is required, but it omits return behavior, error conditions, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact across three sentences. The payment sentence is relevant but slightly detached from the core extraction behavior.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and some limitations. It remains incomplete on parameter expectations and sibling differentiation, which matters given tools like clean_and_chunk and sanitize_text.

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 must explain the single `content` parameter. It implies the input is HTML text, but does not clarify the parameter name, format expectations, or what the content should contain.

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 states a clear verb and resource: extract text from HTML, ignore script/style content, and normalize formatting artifacts. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like clean_and_chunk or sanitize_text, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 indirect usage boundaries by saying it does not promise malformed-Markdown repair or HTML security validation. It does not provide positive when-to-use conditions or name the sibling alternative for those excluded cases.

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