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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 1-hour URL expiry and the default Markdown stylesheet, but does not cover error conditions (e.g., providing both inputs), size limits, or asynchronous behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. It provides actionable guidance on input selection without any redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (input, output, expiry) and parameters are fully documented in the schema. It omits details about error handling, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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% for all 8 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity of html and markdown, a constraint not captured in the schema, and clarifies the Markdown styling advantage.

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 clearly states the tool renders HTML or Markdown into a PDF and returns a download URL, specifying the exact input types and output. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling pdf_from_url, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

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 usage context by requiring exactly one of html or markdown and recommending Markdown for quick styling, but it does not mention when to use this tool instead of pdf_from_url or provide any exclusion criteria for alternatives.

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