markdownopt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cost and token reduction, but does not disclose error handling, size limits, behavior when both url and html are supplied, or output format details. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 at two sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and benefit. A slightly more structured approach (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability, but it is already efficient.

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 the absence of output schema, annotations, and schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'LLM-ready markdown' entails (e.g., formatting, metadata), nor does it cover error cases or rate limits. The tool's behavior is under-specified for reliable agent invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the two parameters are alternatives ('Pass a url OR html field'), but it does not clarify constraints (e.g., URL format, required HTML structure) or how to choose between them. This adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 purpose: 'Convert URL or HTML to clean LLM-ready markdown.' It includes a specific benefit ('~70% token reduction') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like docconvert_text and docconvert_pdf, which handle other conversions.

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 indicates to pass 'a url OR html field,' which gives basic usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like scrapepay or structextract, nor does it provide conditions for avoidance or prerequisites.

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