convert_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior ('format is detected from the content'), but omits notable traits: all three parameters are optional so neither url nor path is formally required, and nothing is said about truncation effects, failure modes, or unsupported inputs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the input and format rules. Nothing is padded and nothing repetitive.

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?

The tool is simple (3 flat params, no nesting, no output schema), and the description covers the essentials of what it does and how to supply input. However, with no output schema it should say more about what is returned and that max_chars can truncate the result, and it never states what happens when both or neither of url/path is given.

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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not state: url and path are mutually exclusive alternatives ('either ... or'), and the input format is inferred rather than declared. That mutual-exclusivity note meaningfully constrains how the agent fills the parameters.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Convert one document to Markdown') and names the output format, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not enumerate which input formats are supported, which keeps it from being a fully specified 5, and there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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?

'Give either `url` or `path`' is a parameter rule rather than a when-to-use rule; usage is only implied by the conversion framing. There are no alternatives to route between and no stated exclusions or preconditions (e.g. unsupported formats, network access limits), so the guidance is adequate but thin.

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