extract_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses read-only behavior, error handling for restricted pages, and the HAUNT_API_KEY requirement. It does not mention rate limits or size constraints, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Four efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers input constraints, behavior, error cases, and environment setup. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying it must be a 'permitted public page' and 'valid HTTP or HTTPS URL', clarifying the input requirements.

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 the tool returns clean Markdown from permitted public web pages, listing specific use cases (agents, RAG ingestion, notes, .md files). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying what it does not do (blocked, login-required, etc.) and contrasting with 'non-LLM output mode'.

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 when-to-use context (low-cost clean page extraction) and when-not-to (blocked, paywalled, etc.), plus an environment variable requirement. It lacks explicit references to sibling tools as alternatives, but the constraints are clear.

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