convert_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the conversion scope, the supported syntax, and the exact return keys including html and cost_usd. It does not discuss sanitization, raw HTML handling, or limits, but for a pure conversion utility this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses a compact feature list instead of prose, and has clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes actionable information without padding.

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 tool has a single trivial parameter and no output schema, so the description sufficiently explains input and return values. It could be more complete by stating whether the output is an HTML fragment or full page and whether unsupported Markdown is silently ignored, but these are not blocking gaps for a single-argument utility.

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 only defines markdown as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by adding 'markdown: Raw Markdown string' and the main description qualifies what kinds of Markdown are accepted. This adds useful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a Markdown string to HTML.' It additionally enumerates the supported Markdown elements, which makes the tool's scope concrete and clearly differentiates it from the other convert_* siblings.

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 clearly implies this tool is for Markdown-to-HTML conversion and lists the constructs it handles, giving an agent enough context to choose it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no direct Markdown-conversion sibling exists, so the omission is minor.

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