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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the output shape ('{ok, source, title, headings, links, urls, emails, text}') and the per-call cost. It stops short of detailing error behavior or edge cases, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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 compact sentences deliver the core function, input domain, output shape, and cost without fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes useful guidance.

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?

Given the simple 3-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It even adds cost information that is not present elsewhere. It could be more complete by noting any size limits or failure modes, but nothing essential is missing for a straightforward extraction call.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description lists the request body shape but adds no meaning beyond what the schema property descriptions already provide, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Extracts') and a precise resource ('clean text, title, headings, links, URLs, and emails from HTML or plain text'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like dns_lookup or repair_json. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 makes the input domain explicit ('from HTML or plain text'), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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