submit_pdf_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: asynchronous execution, returning a Job ID, and requiring a follow-up poll. While it doesn't mention failure modes or permissions, the essential operational behavior is transparent and goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical follow-up instruction is included without wasted words.

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 a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: submit, get Job ID, poll status, download PDF. It could add error-case or timeout details, but the core context is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond echoing 'URL or HTML' which is already clearly documented in the schema. This baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Submit a webpage URL or HTML to be converted to a PDF asynchronously.' It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and names the exact resource (URL/HTML to PDF). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by stating it returns a Job ID and explicitly directs the agent to use check_pdf_status afterward.

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 explicitly says 'You MUST then use the check_pdf_status tool to poll the status and download the PDF,' which clearly defines when this tool should be used (submission) versus the alternative (polling/downloading). This is unambiguous and actionable.

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