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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral content — that live labels, answers and exception tags are preserved, i.e. the export is a faithful render — but says nothing about permissions, output size limits, or what happens when no template is supplied.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the better failure mode here.

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, but the description introduces a phantom templateId parameter and leaves locationId and the freeform 'data' object uncharacterized. For a nested-object tool with an opaque additionalProperties schema, an agent needs more to construct a correct call.

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 50%, and the undocumented required parameter (locationId) gets no explanation in the text. Worse, the description advertises an optional 'templateId' and 'export selections' that do not appear in the input schema at all, so the prose sends the agent looking for parameters that don't exist while the real 'data' object is described only generically.

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 the site's PDF') and adds what fidelity is preserved (live labels, answers, exception tags), which tells an agent this is a rendered/annotated location export rather than a raw dump. It does not however distinguish itself from the many sibling PDF exports (export_book_pdf, export_policy_pdf, export_sop_pdf), leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives — notably list_location_pdf_templates, which would be the obvious prerequisite for choosing a template, or the other PDF exports. The only usage hint is 'Optional templateId', which is expressed as a fact rather than guidance.

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