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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the artifact-type scope and the fact that a link is returned. It does not explain that the call produces a new PDF artifact (implied by readOnlyHint=false) or whether re-exporting regenerates content, which is the main behavioral question for this tool.

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 tight sentences: purpose and trigger first, returned value second, scope exclusion last. No filler and nothing buried.

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, and the description still flags the return ('a link to the PDF'), plus the supported artifact types. For a single-parameter export tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already tells the agent artifactId comes from search_artifacts or create_document. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb ('export') plus resource and format ('one of their Xenition documents as a PDF file'), with the output named ('a link to the PDF'). This separates it cleanly from create_document, get_artifact and extract_from_artifact without opening any 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?

Explicit triggering context ('when the user wants ... to download, print or attach') and an explicit scope exclusion ('for slides, sheets or notes, open them in Xenition to export'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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