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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: large exports run in the background and may return a pending status first, and it requires the user's Cotlet API key with app access. The async/pending nuance is valuable and not in the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and formats, then layers template, background-processing, and auth details. It is fairly dense but every sentence carries information; no wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: a download link for one report, possibly a pending status. Combined with format, template, and auth notes, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: template values map to expense-level vs report-level and custom admin templates, and PDF includes receipts and report notes. This enriches understanding of the format/template interplay beyond raw field descriptions.

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 (export) and resource (report), enumerates the two formats and the template levels, and clearly bounds it to one report. An agent can distinguish this from get_report or list_reports without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description explains what formats/templates exist and references report_id 'from list_reports', which implies the workflow, but it never states when to choose export over get_report or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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