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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the schema: it is free during validation with no key, credits, or wallet required, and that source/input limits still apply — useful operational facts an agent cannot infer 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost/auth facts, then limits. Nothing is wasted, though the pricing detail is somewhat promotional rather than task-critical.

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 values need not be described, and readOnly annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies auth/cost and limit context, leaving only minor gaps such as what "article text" extraction does with non-article 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?

Schema coverage is 67%; the nested input.html object carries no inline description, though the top-level requestId and maxPriceMicroUsd fields are documented as ignored legacy fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. accepted HTML form, what maxLength 100000 means), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Extract article text from supplied HTML" gives a specific verb (extract) and resource (article text), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like html_links, html_tables, and html_metadata that extract other facets. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the target output is unambiguous.

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 says nothing about when to choose this tool over the many other html_* extractors. "FREE during validation" and "Existing source and input limits apply" are pricing/limit notes, not usage routing guidance, so the agent gets no when-to-use or when-not-to-use signal.

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