document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it adds that extraction is non-browser, content type is sniffed and routed to pypdf/python-docx/python-pptx, and that optional dependencies may need installing. It could mention failure modes or whether any state changes occur, but the read-only extraction framing is clear.

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?

Every sentence adds value and the most identifying information is front-loaded. The usage cases, routing detail, and dependency caveat are each one concise line, with no filler.

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 extracted-text tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, supported formats, routing, and install needs. It is incomplete for the two optional parameters (`timeout`, `max_pages`), which are not documented in the schema or the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies only `url` by restricting it to PDF/DOCX/PPTX document links; `timeout` and `max_pages` are left completely unexplained beyond their names and defaults.

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 line names an exact action (extract text), input family (PDF/DOCX/PPTX URL), output (markdown), and an explicit constraint (no browser). It also places the tool relative to `search_papers`, so an agent can distinguish document conversion from generic scraping siblings.

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?

It gives concrete conditions: use when the user shares a PDF/Word/PowerPoint link and wants text, and after `search_papers` on a pdf_url. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or state hard exclusions, though 'no browser' implicitly rules out general web pages.

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