html_to_markdown_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default stripping of tags and heading style, and indicates the return type. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation or mention any potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a conversion tool, this is a moderate level of 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 well-structured with a clear summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise, every sentence serves a purpose, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration. The format is easy to parse and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, and the return type. It misses potential edge-case behaviors (e.g., handling of malformed HTML) but is otherwise complete for a conversion tool with this parameter set.

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 description provides explicit explanations for all three parameters (html, strip_tags, heading_style) including defaults and allowed kinds (e.g., 'ATX' or 'SETEXT'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaning beyond the raw schema field names.

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 starts with 'Converts HTML content to Markdown format', which is a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like html_to_text_tool and clean_html_tool, as it targets a specific conversion target.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The existence of sibling tools like html_to_text_tool suggests potential ambiguity, but the description offers no direction.

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