Convert HTML to Markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and no-network behavior are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that url resolves relative links — but says nothing about processing limits, error behavior, or what 'clean' means.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the url hint as a secondary clause. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only conversion utility with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and the main output modes. The only gap is that it omits the 'json' output format available in the enum, though the schema compensates.

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%, so every parameter including url, format, include_links/images/tables is already documented with defaults in the schema. The description only restates the url parameter, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb (Convert) and resource (raw HTML into Markdown/plain text), and the phrase 'you already have' scopes it against fetching siblings like read_url. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 'raw HTML you already have' phrasing implies the use case (local conversion vs. retrieval), but no explicit when-to-use rule or alternative is given, and no exclusions such as 'use read_url to fetch a page first' appear. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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