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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds that each row corresponds to a generation attempt, which clarifies that failed attempts may also appear—useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key clarification about generation attempts is included.

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 simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but those are not essential given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, including the report_id description that points to list_reports as the source. The tool description does not add further parameter information, so it relies on 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?

States a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'PDF export history for a report', with clarification that each row corresponds to a generation attempt. This clearly distinguishes it from generation (generate_pdf) and status-check (get_pdf_status) tools.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like generate_pdf or get_pdf_status. The description implies it is for retrieving history, not creating or checking a single export, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative naming, so usage is only implied.

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