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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds context those annotations cannot convey: the returned URL is temporary, it expires with the workspace, and uploaded-part exports are blocked in this hosted environment. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, then constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'Download before workspace expiry' is terse and slightly telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the download_url. Auth limitations and expiry are covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented grid/paper/ID parameters, which leaves the agent without guidance on half the inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only addresses format (DXF vs PDF) and layout. It says nothing about grid, paper size (a4/letter/a3), result_id, or workspace_id, and it references a 'layout_id' that does not exist in the schema, which is misleading.

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 and resource ('Export a built-in example') plus the concrete output formats (DXF, tiled 1:1 PDF) and the return artifact (temporary download_url). It is clear enough to disambiguate from siblings like create_layout or run_drape, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with any named sibling tool.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance: use layout=true to export all example pieces, and uploaded-part exports require the signed-in website or an authenticated local adapter rather than this hosted workspace. It also warns to download before workspace expiry. No explicit when-not-to-use-this-vs-sibling mapping, 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.