convert_to_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does excellently: it discloses VLM fallback behavior, OCR language override default, page_range inclusivity, and the return result structure. This goes beyond basic facts.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, supported formats, then a detailed Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or 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 the tool's complexity (5 params, 1 required, output schema), the description covers all inputs, explains behavioral nuances, and even describes the return result fields. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each of the 5 parameters, including default values, formats, and meaning (e.g., enable_vlm, page_range, image_caption_mode with its enumerated options). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 a document or image to Markdown, listing specific supported formats (PDF, DOCX, PPTX, HTML, images). This distinguishes it from siblings like convert_to_text and extract_tables.

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 provides clear context about what formats and options are supported, and how opts like page_range and image_caption_mode work. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings (e.g., when to use convert_to_text instead), so it lacks direct exclusions.

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