topai_web_to_markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds latency (<30ms), statelessness, and the fact that document metadata accompanies the output. It does repeat read-only/idempotent from the annotations, which caps it below the top band, but the timing and output-composition details are genuine additions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before routing to alternatives, then a terse performance line. It is efficient, though the 'stateless, read-only, idempotent' clause partially restates the annotations.

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 two-parameter stateless conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, exclusions, latency, and the presence of document metadata. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., handling of non-HTML content or extraction failures), so it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry full descriptions (URL validity/private-IP constraint, include_links default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (converts), a precisely scoped resource (any public HTTP/HTTPS webpage), and the output form (clean, ad-free, token-optimized Markdown with metadata). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (reading article text, documentation, web pages before RAG indexing or summarization) and names two concrete alternatives with the conditions that select them: `topai_headless_screenshot` for pixel captures and `topai_ai_web_search` for keyword searches. Nothing is left to inference.

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