to_markdown

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail by stating it 'refuses when over the token budget,' which is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Both sentences contribute useful information: what the tool does and a key constraint on its execution.

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 the absence of parameter documentation and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: how pages and password affect conversion, what the markdown output contains, and how token-limit refusal is surfaced. The annotations cover safety but not these operational details.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of source, pages, or password. The description's only reference to the input is the generic word 'document,' which does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a clear action and result: 'Convert a document to markdown.' This is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like extract or read_page.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract, extract_tables, or read_page. There are no use-case conditions, exclusions, or examples of when to prefer a sibling tool.

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