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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that by enumerating exactly which constructs are removed — including code fences, which is a non-obvious destructive-ish behavior inside an otherwise safe operation — and by stating the cost-reduction intent. It does not say how fence contents or inline code are treated, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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 sentences: capability first, operational rationale second. No filler, no restating the tool name, and the actionable advice is front-loaded enough to be read at a glance.

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 one-parameter, fully annotated tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and why an agent should reach for it. The only residual gap is edge-case behavior (code fence content, list nesting, whitespace normalization) which an agent might want before trusting output fidelity.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a worked example in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about format handling (e.g., whether code fence bodies are preserved or stripped), 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?

States a specific verb ('strip') and resource ('Markdown formatting from text') and enumerates the constructs removed (headers, bold, italic, code fences, links, lists), plus the output form ('clean plain text'). An agent can immediately tell this performs the inverse of sibling html_to_markdown rather than token counting (count_tokens) or whitespace cleanup (normalize_whitespace).

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?

Gives an explicit usage context: run it before injecting scraped docs, READMEs, or user content into a prompt, with the stated rationale (fewer markup tokens, lower cost). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer normalize_whitespace or truncate_to_tokens instead), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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