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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that the tool pretty-prints HTML, without disclosing whether it returns a string, modifies in place, preserves original content, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a transformation 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.

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?

With zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent would have to guess what input expects, what indent and printWidth do, and what the tool returns.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters (input, indent, printWidth). The schema itself only defines types, an enum for indent, and a numeric range for printWidth, but no explanatory text. The description does nothing to compensate.

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-resource pair: pretty-print HTML. It is clear what the tool does, and no sibling tool performs HTML formatting. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent format tools like css_format or js_format.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description only states the core action and offers no context such as when formatting is appropriate or what input shapes are acceptable.

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