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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses free-plan size caps with the resulting 413 status, per-type pricing tiers, the USDC/Base-or-Solana x402 payment path, and the shape of the returned JSON. It omits failure modes beyond the size cap and gives no hint about what 'warnings' contains, which keeps it below a 5.

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 use condition, then input, output, and price in a tight telegraphic block with no filler prose. The pricing information is stated twice (per-type table plus a $0.0027–$0.009 range) and the payment/x402 note is split across two sentences, which is minor waste.

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 and no annotations, yet the description names the return fields (markdown, title, pages, sourceType, warnings), all input modalities, limits, and cost. For a conversion tool with 4 params this is close to sufficient; the missing sibling differentiation and the sparse handling of HWP vs HWPX size limits are the remaining gaps.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: url is fetched via GET, while files arrive by POST as multipart 'file', raw body, or JSON contentBase64 plus filename. That transport mapping is not derivable from the parameter docs alone.

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 concrete verb and resource set: convert web page, PDF, DOCX, or Korean HWP/HWPX into clean Markdown with tables preserved. The agent knows exactly what transformation happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling extractors like docs_extract or web_read, so selection still requires inference.

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?

"Use when an agent must read a document as clean Markdown" gives a clear triggering condition, and the listed input types narrow the scope. No when-not or named alternatives appear, so an agent facing web_read or docs_extract has no stated tiebreaker.

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