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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: exactly what content is stripped, entity decoding rules, separate <title> return, a 250000-char ceiling, a single linear pass, and x402 payment terms (price per network, failed calls not charged). That pricing and failure-charging detail is genuinely useful operational context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then layered behavior, limits, and pricing in a compact form with no filler sentences. It is a single dense sentence, but every clause carries either transformation semantics or operational constraint, so nothing feels wasted.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema conversion tool, the description covers inputs, output shape (<title> separated from body text), structural handling, limits, and cost model. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and anticipate the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it; baseline would be 3-4. The description reinforces this by restating the 250000-character input limit, adding a soft confirmation of the boundary rather than new 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?

States a specific verb+resource (Converts HTML to readable plain text) and immediately scopes the transformation: what is dropped (scripts/styles/comments, attribute text), what is preserved (paragraph/list structure), and how tables and entities are handled. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like text.extract, text.chunk, and summarize.

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 usage through its input constraint (up to 250000 characters) and its conversion semantics, but never states when to pick this over the adjacent text.extract or text.chunk tools. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are given, so selection is left to inference.

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