email_to_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the input scope, output components, and the $0.01 cost. However, it does not mention what happens if the local path is invalid, whether output_path is required, or what the API returns on success/failure.

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 a compact, front-loaded single sentence that communicates purpose, input constraints, output structure, and pricing without digression. Minor structural improvement would be separating pricing from the primary task, but there is no wasted 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return values, error cases, and parameter behavior, especially output_path and idempotency_key. The description covers the core conversion task but is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the file parameter by mentioning '.eml, local path'. It provides no explanation of output_path, page_format, or idempotency_key, leaving agents to guess their meaning, defaults, and format requirements.

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 states a specific verb ('Archive'), the exact input resource (a local .eml email file), and the output (a clean PDF with header table, body, inline images, and attachment list). This clearly differentiates it from sibling conversion tools like image_to_pdf and office_to_pdf.

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 states the clear usage context: when you have a local .eml email and want a clean PDF archive. It also includes an important constraint ('local path'), which helps avoid misuse. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the specific file type and output composition make the intended use obvious.

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