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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses parallel execution, per-item isolation so one bad URL never fails the batch, the ok:false error slot shape, the shared output budget split evenly across items, per-item truncated flags, and the Pro API key requirement. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the batch size and API-key constraint, then structured line-by-line by concern (item shapes, isolation semantics, output budget, opt-out flag, alternatives). Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately conveys the return shape (per-item ok/error, truncated flags, metadata-only mode). The one residual gap is quality_check, whose accepted values and effect are undocumented anywhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents items — both accepted object shapes, the filename_hint/filename distinction, and that types may be mixed — and explains include_markdown's effect on the response. The quality_check parameter (default 'basic') is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource (convert documents to Markdown), the batch size bounds (2-10), and the credential requirement (Pro API key). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from convert_url and convert_base64 by naming them as the right choice for anonymous callers.

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 routing: use this for 2-10 items in one call, and use convert_url / convert_base64 individually when anonymous. It also names a distinct use case for include_markdown=false (health-checking a folder without flooding context), which tells an agent when the metadata-only mode is appropriate.

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