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

Without annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses useful behavior such as stripping scripts/styles, NFKC normalization, zero-width/bidi character removal, and pricing via x402, but omits input length limits, error behavior, and whether partial output is returned.

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 three tightly written sentences with no waste. Purpose, normalization behavior, and pricing are front-loaded in a logical order.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and some behavior. However, it leaves notable gaps around mode values, input limits, and output shape that an agent must infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the mode parameter by describing text-mode normalization and implies markdown mode, but it does not name the allowed mode values or document the html parameter's 400,000 character limit.

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 and resource: stripping scripts/styles from HTML and returning readable text or markdown. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool url_to_markdown, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The implied use case is cleaning raw HTML strings, but the description never names or rules out alternatives such as url_to_markdown.

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