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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, offering little safety context. The description adds significant behavioral traits: maximum page count, file expiration, and a pricing model (trial then 10 cents from prepaid credit). These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about side effects and resource costs.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then lists key constraints and costs. Every sentence contributes useful information, making it easy to scan.

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 6 parameters, a oneOf requirement, and no output schema, the description covers the main function and constraints but leaves gaps. It does not mention that title is required, that markdown and sections are mutually exclusive, or what the output looks like (e.g., URL or file path). These are important for correct invocation, so the description is only partially complete.

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 the parameters. It mentions Markdown or structured sections and layout options, which map to markdown, sections, and template. However, it does not explain title, author, subtitle, or the oneOf constraint that exactly one content type must be provided. The required title parameter is omitted, leaving the agent to infer it from the schema.

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 it creates a PDF and specifies the layout options (report, proposal, briefing) and input types (Markdown or structured sections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chartlink_create_chart or collect_create_form, which target different artifacts.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions constraints (max 10 pages, 24-hour expiry, cost) but does not say 'use this when...' or point to a sibling tool for other cases. The cost and page limit imply trade-offs, but that is not explicit usage guidance.

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