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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 5 MB size cap, a 3-page-per-call limit, supported input transports (GET url vs POST multipart/raw/base64), the output shape, and a paid x402 requirement at $0.015 USDC on Base or Solana. Gaps are minor: nothing about failure modes, low-confidence pages, or what happens when a page limit is exceeded.

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 use case, followed by limits, input forms, output shape, alternative, example and price — a sensible priority order. The prose is dense and slightly run-on (input/output/pricing compressed into one block), keeping it just short of 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return fields (JSON markdown, per-page confidence, warnings), plus constraints, transports, cost and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to construct a correct call and to interpret the result.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that files can be supplied via POST multipart 'file' or raw body, transports the two named parameters cannot express. It also restates the 5 MB limit consistently with the schema rather than contradicting 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?

States a specific verb and resource: OCR of scanned PDFs and PNG/JPEG/WebP images into Markdown, with language scope (Korean/English) and table handling. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling convert_to_markdown / /v1/convert/markdown for PDFs with selectable text, so an agent can route 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when an agent must read text from a scan, photo or screenshot') and names the exclusion case ('PDFs with selectable text: use /v1/convert/markdown'), pointing to the alternative tool by path. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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