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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states the tool renders from an existing CRSProf artifact and that options are 'presentation-only overrides,' indicating a non-mutating export operation. It also gives a concrete behavioral rule to omit unit_system unless explicitly requested. It does not discuss auth or output handling, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 tightly scoped sentences with no filler: the main action comes first, the data source and option scope are second, and the crucial unit-system instruction is last. 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 two-parameter export tool with a nested options object and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation information: what to export from, what options can change, and the one subtle default behavior. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists; minor gaps like default format behavior are covered by the schema.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate; it does by enumerating the option categories (title, subtitle, units, format, file name) and adding the important unit_system omission rule. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some parameter format details are left to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a Hi-Fi PDF or standalone checkpoint card from an existing CRSProf artifact.' This names the output, the input, and the fact that the artifact already exists, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_race_plan or get_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?

The description establishes a clear precondition (an existing CRSProf artifact) and clarifies that options are presentation-only, so an agent can infer when export is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving some selection guidance to inference.

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