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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds real context beyond them: authentication is required, the page must be owned by the caller, download availability is conditional on a response flag, and the operation does not render or publicize the PDF. It also notes offline PDFs carry no access gate, analytics, or live interactions. Missing only detail on the management links themselves.

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, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by the conditional logic and scope boundary. Each sentence carries information, though the wording in the second sentence is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively specifies what comes back (link set plus directDownloadAvailable flag) and the conditions under which each link is usable. Annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little for the description to add beyond id semantics.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only indirectly does so: 'owned page' implies id is a page identifier that must belong to the caller, which conveys an ownership/authorization constraint but no format or accepted-value detail.

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: returning export links (browser-print, PDF-download, management) for an owned page. It also draws a boundary against siblings like publish_html/preflight_html by clarifying it does not render or publicly expose a PDF. It never names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gating rule for direct download (only when directDownloadAvailable is true, otherwise use browserPrintUrl) is a genuine usage instruction. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over preflight_html, publish_html, or get_page, so the agent must infer the situation.

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