document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that no browser is used, that content-type is sniffed and routed to specific parsers, and that optional dependencies must be installed. These are genuine behavioral details beyond what the schema shows.

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, each carrying useful information, with the core operation front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 description is complete enough for the core operation and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. Minor gaps remain around timeout/max_pages semantics and explicit sibling routing, but they do not prevent an agent from calling the tool correctly in the main case.

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; it only clarifies the URL parameter by specifying supported document formats and content-type routing. timeout and max_pages are left with only their names and defaults, leaving units and page-limiting semantics for specific formats undefined.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb ('Extract'), a precise resource ('PDF/DOCX/PPTX URL'), and a specific output (markdown). The 'no browser' qualifier and document-only formats distinguish it from siblings like scrape and extract.

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 clearly implies the intended case: document URLs that should be converted without a browser. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the format constraint gives an agent enough context to route correctly.

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