PDF to Word

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavior: preserved structure, OCR for scanned pages, and an explicit limitation that page layout and images are not reconstructed. Only the fact that the output file must not pre-exist is left to 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core conversion, followed by fidelity scope, OCR, and one limitation. Every clause carries information and none is redundant.

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?

With a 100% covered schema, full annotations, and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description supplies the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: fidelity scope, OCR, and layout/image limitations. Only minor details like output-file pre-existence are left to structured fields.

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 both required params and the pages param are fully documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and both the source and target resource (PDF → editable Word .docx), and enumerates what is preserved. It is clearly distinguishable from the many conversion siblings (pdf_to_pptx, pdf_to_epub, pdf_from_office) by 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 conversion framing implies when to use it, and the note about OCR covers scanned-page inputs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pdf_to_epub/pdf_to_pptx or other siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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