convert_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that output is persisted as a new asset, and it explains the asynchronous behavior where `status` is 'processing' and the `url` returns 202 until conversion completes — a non-obvious operational detail. It stops short of noting that repeated calls create duplicate assets despite a read-modify shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, with no filler. The stray line breaks and parenthetical ellipsis make it slightly less polished but the content is efficient.

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 9-parameter conversion tool with a required `format`, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the key async status behavior. The source-selection logic (key vs path vs content_base64) is left entirely to the schema, but since the schema documents it precisely, the definition is adequate.

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 the input parameters are already fully documented and the description adds no input-parameter semantics. It does mention the output fields `status` and `url`, but the tool has an output schema, so this is supplementary rather than compensating for a gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Converts a document') and illustrates it with concrete conversions (Word to PDF, PDF to Word, PDF page to image), so the agent immediately understands the operation. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like extract_text or upload_file, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 conversion examples, so an agent can infer this is the tool for format transformation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus upload_file (plain storage) or extract_text (text extraction), and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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