html_to_text_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the preserve_links parameter but does not disclose behavior such as handling of malformed HTML, script removal, whitespace preservation, or the structure of the returned dictionary beyond 'Dictionary with extracted text'.

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 with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. It contains no unnecessary text, though the Returns section is minimally informative.

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 tool, the core functionality is clear, but it lacks usage context and finer details like the exact dictionary key name. Since an output schema exists, this is acceptable but still minimal for a complete picture.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explicitly describes both parameters: 'html: HTML content to convert' and 'preserve_links: Whether to preserve link URLs in output (default: False)'. This fully explains the semantics beyond the schema's type and default.

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 function: 'Extracts plain text from HTML content.' This is a specific verb-resource-result combination that distinguishes it from siblings like html_to_markdown_tool and clean_html_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for plain text extraction as opposed to markdown conversion or structured data extraction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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