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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-schema context (no key, credits, or wallet required; limits apply), which is useful for an agent deciding whether it can call this at all, but it never explains what happens on non-article pages or what the limits actually are.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and does the real work. The remaining three sentences are largely promotional or vague ('FREE during validation', 'No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed'), and 'Supply your task in input' is filler that creates ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the operation is simple. Still missing is the definition of 'article text' (readability-style main content?), behavior on pages without an article body, and what the referenced input limits concretely are.

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?

The nested object has a single html property at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It says 'supplied HTML' (helpful) but then adds the confusing instruction 'Supply your task in input,' which misleadingly suggests a task string rather than raw HTML, adding noise instead of 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 and resource ('Extract article text from supplied HTML'), which distinguishes it from siblings like html_links, html_tables, or html_headings that parse the same input for other artifacts. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource is specific enough to route correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over html_readable/readability-style siblings, no description of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The line 'Existing source and input limits apply' gestures at constraints without ever stating them.

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