percollate_download_md

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'produces clean, readable Markdown' but doesn't disclose whether it requires network access, whether it overwrites files, whether it blocks, or what happens with multiple URLs. For a write/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is somewhat redundant but adds the 'clean, readable' quality claim. No waste beyond that.

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 16-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't cover behavior, edge cases, output location, or differences from siblings. The schema alone doesn't instruct the agent on safe or correct usage.

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 the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline, but it also fails to mention any parameter defaults or interactions. Score is the baseline 3.

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 states a clear verb (Download), resource (web pages), and output format (Markdown file). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings percollate_download_pdf, percollate_download_epub, or percollate_download_html; the only differentiation is the output format, which is already encoded in the tool name. No sibling is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It doesn't say when to choose this tool over the PDF/EPUB/HTML variants. With four sibling download tools, this is a significant gap.

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