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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the useful operational detail of cost per call. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid HTML, tag stripping specifics, or size limits, so the description carries only modest behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

One focused sentence captures the transformation, and the pricing note is brief and useful operational context. There is no fluff, and the core purpose is 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?

With one fully documented required parameter, rich annotations, and a self-evident conversion, the description is nearly complete. The only notable omission is explicit confirmation of the return type, though 'to clean Markdown' strongly implies it.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'html' parameter is already described as a raw HTML string for full document or fragment. The description merely restates that concept, adding no new semantic detail about formats, encoding, or accepted variants.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert'), a precise input resource ('raw HTML'), and output ('clean Markdown'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which describe an HTML-to-Markdown conversion.

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?

While it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', the single-purpose instruction makes the intended use case obvious: whenever raw HTML must become Markdown. There are no close sibling alternatives that compete with this behavior, so the lack of exclusion phrasing is a minor gap.

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