Markdown to PDF

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

The description discloses key behaviors: uses a headless browser, same parser as fc_md_to_html, requires Edge/Chrome, and falls back to HTML. Annotations idempotentHint:true aligns with the conversion being deterministic. No contradictions.

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 concise, around 6 lines, with a clear structure: first sentence states purpose, then bullet-like args, then additional context. Every sentence provides value without 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 no output schema, the description could mention return behavior (e.g., success output or errors). However, it covers dependencies and fallback. For a conversion tool, this is fairly complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists all parameters and their brief meaning, but adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'optional' for title and clarifies input_path is the Markdown file and output_path is the PDF output. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 converts Markdown to PDF using a headless browser. The verb 'converts' and resource 'Markdown to PDF' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling fc_md_to_html by noting it uses the same Markdown parser but targets PDF output.

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 mentions dependencies (Edge/Chrome) and a fallback to HTML if no browser is found, providing implicit guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like other conversion tools or state when not to use.

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