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

The annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds that output is delivered 'by link' and lists formats, but it does not explain persistence, permissions, overwrite behavior, or whether repeated exports create new links.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the formats are listed immediately. The fragmentary 'by link' phrasing is slightly less clear than a verb-led sentence, so it is not fully 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?

The core resource and format options are present, and the schema covers page selection and file naming. However, given the sibling export_artboard, the description should clarify whole-document scope and link-return behavior; that missing routing context leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so all three optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the format choices but adds no meaningful detail about artboards or file_name beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource (finished deck/document) and the output formats, while the title supplies the export verb. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish the whole-document export from the sibling export_artboard.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direction to export_artboard for single artboards. The phrase 'finished deck or document' only weakly implies the post-design context.

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