pdf_convert_to_text

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses input methods (file path or base64) but does not mention error handling, output format details, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, no redundancy. Includes an implementation detail ('using pdf-parse') that could be omitted, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input methods. Lacks details on output format or error conditions, but sufficient for common use cases.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already states ('Local filesystem path' and 'Base64 encoded PDF file data'). Baseline of 3 applies as it does not enhance understanding.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'raw text from a PDF file', and distinguishes from siblings like pdf_convert_to_markdown by specifying 'raw text'. Also mentions supported input methods (file path or base64), giving a precise scope.

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?

Implied usage is for raw text extraction from PDFs, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., pdf_convert_to_markdown for structured output). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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