Convert an office document to PDF

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It adds the 20 MB limit, plan/billing rule, output format, and 'not kept' retention behavior; it stops short of describing error cases or URL lifetime, which are secondary.

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 dense sentences lead with the core action and result, then pack constraints, plan requirements, and source modes without redundancy. Every clause adds useful information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers formats, size, result, billing, source exclusivity, and retention. It could add URL expiry or failure behavior, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds the crucial mutual-exclusion constraint that exactly one of render_id, path, or file_base64 must be supplied and that file_base64 pairs with file_name, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Converts) and resource (office document to PDF) and returns a download URL, which distinguishes it from render-oriented siblings. Listing supported formats further narrows the tool's purpose.

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 clearly describes the three source modes and states 'Pass exactly one source', giving an agent the key precondition. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the render_id option ties it naturally to the render workflow.

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