Render a web page as PDF

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and open-world annotations, the description adds two useful behaviors: it starts no browser session and it returns a link rather than inline content. It does not contradict the annotations, so credit is given for the extra context.

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 succinct sentences front-load the core purpose and return format, then give the alternative and use case. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool with a full schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, session behavior, and the key sibling alternative. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return value, so nothing essential 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 the schema already explains url, delay_ms, and use_proxy. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('a page to PDF') and states the deliverable ('return a link to the file'). It also distinguishes itself from steel_scrape by noting the PDF is for handing a document to a person, so an agent can tell it apart from the most similar sibling.

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 routes the agent: use steel_scrape when the goal is to read the text, and use steel_pdf when the goal is to produce a document for a person. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, leaving little to inference.

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