epub_to_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a non-destructive extraction action, the output type, and even pricing ($0.01), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the result is returned directly or written to output_path, how output=json differs from md, or what happens to the local file.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action/resource/format, and no filler. The use cases and price add value without bloating the description.

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?

Reasonable for a simple converter but not fully complete: the description establishes input and high-level output, yet omits the output/json vs md distinction endlessly related to the schema default, the output_path parameter, and any idempotency details. Since there is no output schema, that missing parameter behavior is more significant.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only hints at the file parameter (local .epub path) and mentions Markdown, while output (including its default json), output_path, and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent choosing values.

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 action (Extract) on a specific resource (.epub local path) with a clear output format (clean Markdown) and intended use cases (reading, summarising, RAG ingestion). It distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools by the .epub scope, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Provides clear context: use for local .epub files when Markdown is needed for reading/summarising/RAG. The local-path qualifier implicitly excludes URLs and remote files, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative converters like pdf_to_markdown or docx_to_markdown.

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