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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: stripping of boilerplate/nav/ads, generation of a signed provenance receipt, determinism (byte-identical output for same input), and cost per call. It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core transformation and includes key differentiators (provenance, determinism, cost). Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description adequately explains the transformation, determinism, and cost. It could be improved by clarifying the structure of the receipt or differentiating more from 'readability', but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter ('url'), and its schema description already states 'the page to convert to markdown (http/https)'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states that the tool converts a URL to clean, LLM-ready markdown by stripping boilerplate, navigation, and ads, while preserving headings, lists, and links. It also mentions a signed provenance receipt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'readability' or 'extract' by positioning it as a RAG-ingest primitive.

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 mentions that the tool is deterministic and has a fixed cost per call, which implies it is suitable for reliable, repeatable conversions without LLM involvement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives among siblings.

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