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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Clean article text' reveals nothing about whether the tool fetches the URL, what output format is returned, how errors are handled, or whether the original text is modified. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise at four words, with no waste. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally viable; it lacks critical context that should be included, so the brevity is not a positive trait.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the cleaned text looks like, whether it returns plain text or HTML, what happens with non-article URLs, or any side effects. The tool's complexity is low, but the description still fails to make it usable.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. The url parameter is self-explanatory from its name and type, but the description adds little beyond implying the URL should point to an article. It does not clarify expected format, edge cases, or interaction with the tool's behavior.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Clean') and names the resource ('article text'), which gives a clear sense of the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_url or html_clean, and 'clean' is somewhat ambiguous without further context.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools for reading and cleaning content (read_url, html_clean, readability_score), but no guidance about when readability is preferred.

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