clean_html_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (removing scripts/styles, optional allowed_tags filtering) and return type (dictionary). However, it does not disclose edge cases, attribute handling, or potential side effects beyond the stated transformations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information, and the main verb-first structure makes it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: behavior, parameters, and return type. It does not explain error handling or use cases relative to sibling tools, but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning: 'html' is described as the content to clean, and 'allowed_tags' clarifies that None means all tags except script/style. This is helpful but not deeply detailed; it lacks examples or constraints beyond what the schema types already show.

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 it cleans HTML by removing scripts and styles, and optionally limiting to allowed tags. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like html_to_text_tool or extract_article_tool.

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 usage context is implied through the description of what the tool does, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as html_to_text_tool or extract_links_tool. No when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.

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