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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description still earns its keep by disclosing the output transformation rules (what gets removed, what becomes line breaks or bullets) plus cost behavior — $0.01/call, 25 free, failed calls free, repeats charged. 'Reads or computes only and changes nothing' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the charge-per-call note makes idempotentHint=false understandable to the agent.

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-loaded with purpose and transformation behavior, which is the right order. The pricing/call-charging sentence is long and slightly interrupts the technical narrative, but it carries information an agent needs before looping on this paid tool.

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?

One parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety — the description supplies exactly what is missing: what the output text looks like, what an agent would use it for, and what each call costs. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The inline example showing html=<h1>Hi</h1><p>A &amp; B</p><ul><li>one</li></ul> adds concrete input-format value beyond the schema's bare 'The HTML'.

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 readable plain text') and then enumerates the exact transformations performed (scripts/styles removed, block elements to line breaks, bullets, entity decoding). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like html_table_to_json or markdown_to_html, which go in different directions.

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?

'Use to feed web content or emails to an LLM' gives an explicit intended context, and the worked example anchors the input shape. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use html_table_to_json when tabular structure must be preserved), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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