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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it states the format-support prerequisite and discloses the return value (a download URL), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: purpose first, usage triggers second, prerequisite and return value last. The trigger list is longer than one clause but every item is a distinct, useful signal, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating it returns a download URL. With a fully-documented nested parameter schema and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 fully documents design_id, format, and the nested export settings including size, pages, width/height, and quality. The description mentions 'selected pages' and 'another file type' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (an existing Canva design) plus the outcome (a downloadable file to use outside Canva). It is clearly the export/output tool in a sibling set that otherwise covers editing, listing, and format discovery, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Enumerates concrete when-to-use triggers (printing, email attachments, sharing as a file, format conversion, selected pages) and adds a prerequisite: confirm the design supports the requested format first. It stops short of explicitly naming get-export-formats as the alternative/discovery tool, so the routing hint is implied rather than stated.

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