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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, meaning this creates a persistent artifact. The description clarifies it makes a fixed copy and mentions cost (5 credits) and white-label branding, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain why it's destructive or whether exports can be overwritten/deleted, so with annotations already covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and use cases, but it is somewhat verbose and includes multiple example phrases that could be condensed. Every sentence has some value, but the structure could be tighter.

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 tool with nested branding options, enum formats, and destructive annotations, the description covers purpose and some usage but omits details like credit cost implications on failure, handling of report_id for different types, or output structure. It's adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 50%, so half the parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions branding fields (logo, colours, name) and output formats implicitly, but doesn't explain the report_id variations for different report_types (e.g., person_profile_id for dossier). This gap is not fully compensated by the description.

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 tool converts existing content into a sendable file (web page, PDF, or plain text) with white-label branding. It conveys the core verb+resource but does not name or differentiate from siblings like get_snapshot or get_full_report.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ("send me that as a PDF", "I need this as a document for the client", "put our branding on it") and contrasts with sharing a live link. It doesn't name sibling tools or say when not to use this specific tool versus alternatives like get_snapshot.

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