PDF to Word Converter (Tanod)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description nevertheless adds substantial beyond-schema context: LibreOffice-produced text-box-per-line output that is not reflowable, table/link/form fidelity loss, error mapping (422 too dense/encrypted, 413 oversized output, 503 timeout), 2-20 s latency profile, price and no free tier. It stops short of describing pagination or partial-failure semantics in the response body. With annotations already covering safety, a 3 fits.

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-loads the purpose and sibling routing, then layers limits, latency, pricing and security. Every sentence carries real information, but the middle section is dense and run-on (error codes, timing model and price chained with semicolons), which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully enumerated, yet the description still flags the crucial structural caveat (positioned text boxes, not reflowable paragraphs) that an agent must know before routing a downstream editing task here. Limits, failure modes, cost and a prompt-injection warning make it complete for a paid, open-world conversion tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent additions are 'Add output=url for a 24 h link' and the 50-page/parts note for pages, both of which the schema already states (output enum documents url as 24-hour storage; pages documents 'at most 50 per call'). It adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('convert a PDF to Word (.docx) for editing') and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, convert_office_to_pdf (reverse direction) and convert_document_to_markdown (plain text). An agent can pick this tool without opening any 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 routing rules to alternatives, states the prerequisite for scanned PDFs (OCR first) and encrypted inputs (unlock first via pdf_unlock), and names the condition that splits work across calls ('pages converts in parts'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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