extract_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so meaningfully: it discloses performance expectations, selective stripping of HTML bloat, cookie banners, tracking scripts, and SVGs. It could be more transparent about failure modes, authentication needs, or whether the extraction is read-only, but the stripping behavior is genuinely informative.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key differentiator, states the core function, and gives concrete stripping behavior. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 two-parameter extraction tool with a complete schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, behavior, and output format implied by 'web-to-markdown'. It lacks explicit error/edge-case guidance and does not mention quota implications, but the overall tool context is small enough that this is a minor gap.

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 parameters url and include_images are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline score.

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 concrete action — extraction of a web page into clean markdown — and clearly identifies the input and intended output. It also distinguishes itself from check_quota by focusing on content extraction rather than quota status.

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 provides a clear use context: extracting clean markdown for LLM context windows. It implies the tool should be chosen when minimizing HTML noise for downstream processing is important, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with check_quota.

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