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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions which elements are stripped (tags, scripts, styles) but does not disclose other behaviors such as handling of malformed HTML, entity decoding, or whether output preserves whitespace. It adds some value but falls short of full transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and result, no unnecessary words. 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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the primary function. It omits parameter semantics (especially max_chars) and output details, which would be helpful for an agent to call correctly. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 compensate. It does not explain the 'html' parameter or the 'max_chars' parameter (which has a default of 12000). However, the baseline for 0 coverage with 2 params is 3 when the schema covers types; here the schema lacks descriptions, so the description provides no extra meaning, resulting in a low score. But the schema does have defaults, so the description could be worse; still, it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 (strip) and resource (HTML tags/scripts/styles) and clarifies the output (clean readable text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like markdown_to_html (opposite direction) and fetch_page_text (which fetches rather than converts).

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 purpose implies usage context (converting HTML to text), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like fetch_page_text or summarize_text. Adequate but leaves inference.

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