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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: automatic main-article-body detection, recording of the extraction method used, parse-success reporting, and a stated cost of 2 credits. What is missing is any mention of failure modes or how ambiguous markup is handled when article detection finds nothing.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the secondary reporting behaviors and cost. The only waste is the redundant 'HTML to Text: HTML to Text' restatement of the title at the start.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs: input kind, what gets returned at a high level, and cost. The one gap is the absence of any input-size or malformed-markup guidance for a tool whose whole job is parsing arbitrary HTML.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a worked example, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format guidance (encoding, fragments vs full documents, size limits) beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('extracts clean plain text from raw HTML markup') plus secondary outputs (word/character counts, extraction method, parse status). It implicitly separates itself from URL-based siblings like WebsitetoText by scoping input to 'raw HTML markup', but never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'raw HTML markup' phrasing suggests it is for HTML you already have rather than a URL, which is the natural boundary against WebsitetoText and URLtoMarkdown. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.

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