html_to_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that it 'removes scripts, styles, tags' and 'returns clean readable text.' However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., malformed HTML, entities, whitespace handling), which would be valuable for a utility tool. It provides basic but not deep transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first line, behavior in the second, and parameter in the third. The parameter line is redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not significantly bloat the description. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 utility, the description conveys the essential function and output. However, it lacks return-format details (no output schema), usage alternatives, and edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not thorough; a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description merely repeats the parameter name and type ('html: HTML string') already evident from the schema. It adds no extra meaning about expected format, encoding, or whether HTML content or a URL is acceptable. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb ('Strip') and resource ('HTML tags') and the outcome ('extract visible text'). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, none of which aim to convert HTML to plain text.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like extract_links or http_request, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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