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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description resolves the tension by explaining the form itself is not changed and only a PDF artifact is produced. It also discloses the asynchronous job model and the queue/redirect indirection needed to retrieve the result, which annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, zero waste: intent first, then the retrieval chain, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by telling the agent what the reply contains (queue_id) and where the file id lives (redirectUrl). Combined with the polling instructions, an agent has everything needed to complete the full export flow.

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 100%, with both form_id (GUID) and pages ("1-5,7,9" pattern) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("start a PDF export of a form") plus the exact endpoint POST /v2/formz/{formId}/exports. The explicit "WRITE:" prefix separates it from the sibling reader goformz_get_pdf_export without needing the 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?

Gives an explicit downstream workflow: poll goformz_get_queue_item until Completed, then fetch via goformz_get_file using the id in redirectUrl. It does not say when to prefer goformz_get_pdf_export or goformz_get_form instead, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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