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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation is asynchronous, that credits vary by mode, that no_background defaults to true, and that enhance mode redraws with AI. Missing details like auth requirements or exact response shape are minor relative to the strong async and cost transparency provided.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: format/size constraints, input source, default behavior and cost, mode alternatives, and async polling. The most identifying purpose is front-loaded, and the description is compact without filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers formats, size, required input source, modes, credits, and async follow-up via wait_for_task. It could state the exact returned task/result shape, but the explicit polling instruction makes the workflow understandable and actionable.

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 80%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that image_url or image_base64 are the input alternatives, no_background defaults to true and isolates the subject, and mode direct vs enhance affects tracing behavior and credit cost. It does not elaborate on prompt, but the schema already documents it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a raster image ... into a clean, editable SVG.' It enumerates supported formats and size limits, making the tool's purpose easy to identify. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like download_svg, but the conversion framing distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 practical usage direction: provide image_url or image_base64, choose no_background behavior, select direct or enhance mode, and poll with wait_for_task. It does not explicitly state this tool's alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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