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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds two key traits: return format ('Retorna base64') and cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos'). This goes beyond the schema, though it omits potential errors, size limits, or side effects.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct and valuable information: purpose, return format, and cost. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

With a simple two-parameter tool, a 100% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core behavior and return format. It could mention parameter usage or limitations, but the schema handles parameters adequately.

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% (both title and markdown have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Convierte Markdown a PDF' (Converts Markdown to PDF). This distinguishes it from siblings (html_to_pdf, invoice_pdf, report_pdf) by specifying the input format (Markdown).

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 implies usage for Markdown-to-PDF conversion but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools. Users must infer from the input format that this is for Markdown, not HTML, invoices, or reports.

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