validate_html

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the report shape (errors/warnings/fixes) but says nothing about whether validation mutates the input — notably the 'lossy_fixes' parameter defaults to 'apply', implying changes may be applied, which the description never explains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and return shape come first. Slightly terse given how much behavior (fixes, font strategy) is left unexplained.

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 output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the mutation semantics of lossy_fixes and the meaning of font_strategy unaddressed. For a 3-param validation tool with side-effect ambiguity, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints that the html input is 'restricted'. The lossy_fixes and font_strategy parameters — including their defaults and enum-free allowed values — are completely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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+resource: validating restricted HTML against a contract, plus what the report contains (errors/warnings/fixes). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the sibling convert_html, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to validate versus when to use convert_html, get_contract, or the ppt tools, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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