markdownify

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operations, the description adds: cost information ('Costs 2 credits per page'), timeout behavior ('>120 seconds'), error conditions (ValueError, HTTPError, TimeoutError), and specific constraints about protocol requirements. This provides rich operational context not captured in 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, cost, args, returns, raises) and front-loaded key information. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with complex behavior and parameter requirements. Some sentences could potentially be more concise, but overall structure is excellent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, return values, and error conditions. With an output schema present, the return value documentation is appropriately detailed but not redundant. The description addresses all aspects needed for effective tool use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing extensive parameter documentation. It explains the website_url parameter's format requirements, provides valid and invalid examples, and details content type support. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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's purpose with specific verb ('convert') and resource ('webpage into clean, formatted markdown'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is specifically for markdown conversion rather than general scraping or crawling operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for extracting content from documentation, articles, and web pages for further processing'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the purpose differentiation implies alternatives exist.

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