html_to_markdown

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: output is 'clean Markdown' with GitHub Flavored Markdown support for tables and strikethrough. As a pure HTML-to-Markdown transformation, no destructive side effects are implied or hidden. Nothing in the description contradicts the 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?

Two sentences with no waste: the core action is front-loaded, followed by a capability note and a practical use case. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition of the title or schema details.

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, stateless conversion tool, the description covers the essential information: input type, output format, GFM support, and a common use case. It does not spell out the exact return representation, but given the low complexity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 100%: all three parameters (html, gfm, strip_tags) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, just a general GFM mention. This matches the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert HTML content to clean Markdown.' It clearly differentiates the tool from reverse sibling markdown_to_html and from html_to_pdf by naming the exact transformation and output format, with GFM capabilities (tables, strikethrough) further anchoring its identity.

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 a concrete, stated use case: 'Useful for scraping web content for LLM processing.' This is clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full 5.

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