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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing the short-lived nature of the download URL and the warning not to publish. It does not contradict annotations, and provides context beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't detail all side effects (e.g., file generation) or error conditions.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core action and formats are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a caution. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one enum) and that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does, how to choose format, and the key behavioral caution. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain the format enum values (pdf, html, png) with specific meanings (ZIP of site, ZIP of PNG pages). However, it does not clarify job_id or run_id semantics, especially run_id which is optional and less obvious. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps for non-format parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the action (export a job), the resource (job), and the three output formats (pdf, html, png), and specifies the return of a 'short-lived download_url'. It also differentiates from the sibling tool publish_design by explicitly saying 'do not publish unless the user asks', making its role 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?

Provides explicit selection criteria for each format (pdf for print/slides/cards, html for web landing pages, png for images), and states it is the 'standard download step' while cautioning against publishing. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes it from publish operations.

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