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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait the schema lacks: the cost model ($0.005 per call, USDC on Base). However, it says nothing about whether entities are decoded into characters, how malformed HTML is handled, or the return format, which are meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pricing clause is arguably tangential but is genuinely useful context. Nothing is 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 simple text-transformation utility with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete, and no output schema means return details are less critical. It falls just short of 5 because it never states what the stripped output looks like or how entity decoding behaves.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'tags and entities' loosely frames the operation but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and notably does not clarify the opaque 'options' parameter.

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 ('Strip HTML tags and entities from text'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the many fa_* sibling utilities, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from any of them.

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 use this versus siblings such as fa_normalize or fa_digits, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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