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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical traits: it drops scripts and styles, does not fetch external content, costs $0.001 USD in USDC, payments are final and non-refundable, and it returns HTTP 402 until payment. This goes well beyond typical transparency.

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 verbose and redundant: payment details appear twice (once in the main description and again in the untrusted-provider content), and the core purpose is buried after a lengthy technical payment notice. The essential 'Converts HTML to Markdown' sentence appears only at the end, making it poorly front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, payment terms, and key behaviors (dropping scripts/styles, not fetching). However, it leaves the two optional parameters unexplained and does not describe the output format or error behavior. Given the low schema coverage, this is a notable gap that prevents full understanding.

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 schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'html' has a description). The tool description does not mention 'bulletMarker' or 'headingStyle' at all, and the enums and defaults are self-explanatory only to someone already familiar with Markdown. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, adding no meaning beyond the raw enum values.

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 'Converts an HTML fragment or document to Markdown' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'Takes HTML you supply; it does not fetch anything,' which clearly distinguishes it from URL-fetching sibling tools like url-metadata. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 phrase 'Takes HTML you supply; it does not fetch anything' clearly implies that the tool is appropriate when HTML content is already available, not when a URL needs to be retrieved. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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