convert_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses queuing behavior, use of saved settings, defaults (paddle, tables on, images off), wait polling, and return format. It lacks statement on destructive potential or authentication requirements, but overall it is transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief summary followed by parameter details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened but remains clear.

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 complexity (async conversion, wait/async) and presence of output schema, the description covers main behavior, parameters, and return. Missing explicit mention of authentication prerequisites, but siblings imply it. Mostly 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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains path (absolute or home-relative, file types), wait (polling, time-consuming), timeout_sec (max wait when wait=true, default), and output_dir (for downloaded markdown). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uploads a local PDF/CSV and queues conversion. It specifies using saved settings and mentions waiting behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like wait_and_download.

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 explains that the tool uses saved user settings (not per-call flags) and provides factory defaults. It discusses wait behavior and timeout but does not explicitly contrast with the wait_and_download sibling or state when not to use this tool.

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