Markdown to PDF

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the rendering support matrix and, more importantly, an explicit degradation list (CSS/HTML layout, LaTeX packages, non-flowchart Mermaid, script-dependent SVGs) plus the return values, so an agent can predict silent quality loss. It does not mention performance, file-size limits, or failure modes, which keeps it below 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?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the remainder is one long run-on catalogue of syntax features with semicolon-and-comma chaining that is hard to scan. Much of that catalogue is duplicated by the referenced resource rayomd://syntax, so the listing is informative but not tightly curated.

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?

For a 19-parameter converter with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what matters: purpose, capability envelope, degradation, and a pointer to a resource for the exhaustive syntax list. Only the missing sibling routing and parameter-interaction notes keep it from being complete.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description meaningfully exceeds it: it explains that relative image paths resolve from the Markdown file's folder (clarifying how path vs markdown vs source_path interact), and it ties dialect to concrete syntax sets (obsidian callouts, ==highlights==, [[wiki links]]) and diagrams to the Mermaid types actually drawn. It still does not explain interaction between toc, toc_depth and a [TOC] paragraph, or defaults for the boolean flags.

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 ('Converts Markdown ... to a PDF with RayoMD') plus the return payload (page count and warnings). The scope (text or file, single document) is distinguishable from siblings like book_to_pdf and recover_markdown, and the supported/dialect surface tells an agent exactly what class of document this handles.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose but never stated: there is no guidance on when to pick this over book_to_pdf, or when recover_markdown should come first. The closest thing to routing guidance is the parameter-level hint 'give this or path' / 'give this or markdown', which helps invocation but not tool selection.

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