pdf_to_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that scanned PDFs yield poor results, which is key behavioral information. However, it does not mention other traits like write behavior or file handling, though that is partially covered by the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The essential information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple conversion tool with no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete: it states the purpose, caveats, and a suggested alternative. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on this description.

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. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as details on input_file or output_path.

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 explicitly states 'Convert a PDF to an editable Microsoft Word .docx document,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pdf_to_excel or pdf_to_powerpoint by specifying the output format.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to avoid it: 'Conversion quality depends on the source (scanned PDFs produce poor results; use ocr_pdf first if needed).' This explicitly suggests an alternative workflow and sets expectations.

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