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

With annotations covering safety hints, the description goes further and explains the non-obvious cost model ($0.003/call, 25 free, failed calls free) and preempts the annotation question by explaining why readOnlyHint is false. That is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core transformation, then usage, then example, then pricing – a sensible ordering with no filler. The pricing/annotation sentence is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs when deciding whether to call.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return format through its transformation rules (plain text, decoded entities, bulleted list items). Combined with the cost and failure behavior, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the inline example (html=<h1>Hi</h1>...) usefully demonstrates the expected input shape and the entity-decoding behavior. It adds real illustrative value beyond the terse 'The HTML' schema description.

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 (strip HTML to plain text) and enumerates the exact transformations: scripts/styles removed, block elements become line breaks, list items bulleted, entities decoded. That level of specificity distinguishes it from neighbors like markdown_to_html or text_extract without the agent opening any schema.

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 use case ('feed web content or emails to an LLM'), which is real routing guidance against the many other text tools in the sibling list. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or a when-not condition, so it lands just below the top band.

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