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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavioral contract that this is asynchronous, yields a job_id, and must be polled before a URL is available. It also discloses rendering semantics (multi-page reports paginate, dashboards render as one long page), which affects output expectations. It stops short of stating auth requirements or job expiry/rate limits.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action first, then the follow-up workflow, then the rendering nuance. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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, yet the description still surfaces the one return detail an agent must act on (job_id plus the polling/download path) and the page-layout behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 two of the four parameters carry enums, so the schema fully documents format, orientation, report_id, and client_id. The description adds no syntax, default, or constraint 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 and resource ('Queue a PDF render of a report or dashboard'), and the async framing ('Queue') immediately separates it from the synchronous read tools in the sibling list. It also names get_pdf_status, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another 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?

Gives explicit next-step guidance: poll get_pdf_status until completion, then download the URL. That is clear context for the calling sequence, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as preview_report or list_exports, and there are no exclusion conditions.

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