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

Annotations mark this non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but they say nothing about output lifecycle. The description adds real value beyond them: the return is a temporary download_url and it must be downloaded 'before workspace expiry', which tells the agent the artifact is ephemeral.

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 front-loaded sentences with little waste: capability, mode hint, and expiry warning in that order. The only detraction is the stray layout_id reference, which spends words on a parameter that isn't real.

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 structure needn't be explained, and the expiry note is a nice touch. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, omitting grid/paper semantics and citing a nonexistent layout_id leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: it explains only format (DXF/PDF) and layout, omits grid, paper, workspace_id, and result_id entirely, and mentions a nonexistent layout_id. One of six parameters is genuinely clarified.

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 result as DXF or tiled 1:1 PDF') and even names the deliverable ('temporary download_url'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool competes as an exporter, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 one conditional mode hint ('Use layout=true with a layout_id to export all pieces'), which is useful, but that same sentence references a 'layout_id' parameter that does not exist in the schema, weakening the guidance. No when-not-to-use or alternative paths are offered.

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