markdown2pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the conversion action and payment requirement, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. The payment aspect is useful context, but overall behavioral transparency is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise - just 7 words total. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('Convert markdown to PDF') followed by the payment aspect. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context. While it states the basic functionality and payment requirement, it doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens after conversion, error handling, or other important contextual information needed for a tool that performs conversion with payment requirements.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (date, text_body, title) with their descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert markdown to PDF' specifies the verb (convert) and resource (markdown to PDF). It also adds the payment aspect 'pay with Lightning' which provides additional context. However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment ('pay with Lightning') which hints at a cost implication, but doesn't explicitly state when this tool should be used, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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