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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context by stating that the operation returns a download URL and requires prior format-support confirmation, but it does not disclose async behavior, rate limits, or other side effects beyond the annotation-covered safety profile.

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 three short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose, when-to-use, and precondition/return behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy or filler.

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 an export tool with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome (download URL), the key precondition, and representative use cases. It does not address failure modes or asynchronous timing, but the schema carries parameter-level detail, making this sufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, and every parameter (design_id, format, user_intent) along with the nested format fields has a descriptive entry in the input schema. The tool description does not repeat or add parameter semantics, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Export an existing Canva design as a downloadable file') and enumerates concrete use cases: printing, emailing, sharing, converting, or downloading selected pages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-design or get-design-pages, which retrieve design data rather than produce a downloadable artifact.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use when...' conditions covering five concrete scenarios and a hard precondition: 'Only call after you have confirmed that the selected design supports the requested format.' It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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