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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing that output is sanitized and that each call costs 0.001 USDC via x402, but it never says what sanitization strips (tags, attributes, scripts), whether raw HTML in input is dropped or escaped, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: what it does first, cost second. Every clause 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 stateless two-parameter converter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input dialect, output nature, and pricing. The remaining gap is the exact return shape and sanitization boundary, which matters for a tool an agent may chain into downstream rendering.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the paymentProof handshake is fully documented in the schema. The description still adds meaning about the markdown parameter by enumerating the accepted dialect (headings, lists, code, links, emphasis, quotes), which is more than the schema's bare 'Markdown text'.

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 (Markdown -> sanitized HTML) and enumerates the supported Markdown constructs, so the agent knows exactly what the transform covers. It does not name the inverse sibling document_to_markdown, so the differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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 implied by the obvious conversion semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to related siblings such as document_to_markdown or web_render. The x402 pricing note is a cost hint, not usage guidance.

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