web_to_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers substantial context: content cleaning (navigation, ads, cookie banners removed), JavaScript rendering, extracted metadata (title, date, token count), and crawl behavior. It omits auth/rate-limit details, but those are minor for this read-only conversion tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and crawl guidance. No wasted words; slightly over-specifies output fields that the output schema already covers, but this is minor.

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 exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with 0% schema coverage on four parameters, the unexplained max_chars_per_page and missing auth/rate-limit details leave gaps for fully safe invocation.

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 meaningfully explains crawl_site (follow same-domain links) and max_pages (cap on crawled pages), but max_chars_per_page is left unexplained (default 0 is ambiguous) and urls is only implied by the tool name.

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' and resource 'web pages to clean, LLM-ready Markdown', with parenthetical clarification of what is removed. Clearly distinct from all siblings, especially web_search which searches rather than converts.

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?

Gives implied usage through parameter guidance: 'Set crawl_site to follow same-domain links (capped by max_pages)'. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., web_search) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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