export_pdf_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool POSTs to a fake API, converts HTML to PDF, and returns a JSON string with specific keys. This gives agents a clear model of side effects and expected outcome, though it does not cover error cases or potential side effects beyond the POST.

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 compact, well organized with Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main inputs, the action, and the return format. It also ties html_path to a sibling tool, providing end-to-end context. It stops short of listing error conditions or edge cases, but for this tool that is not a significant gap.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters. html_path is described as the output of build_html_report, and report_name is described as a logical name used in the API call. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, although it could mention the default value or allowed formats more explicitly.

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 a specific action: converting an HTML report to PDF and posting it to the API. It also names the expected input, output, and even the return format, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This differentiates it from sibling tools like build_html_report and chart generators.

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 provides clear usage context by stating that html_path should be the output of build_html_report, which signals the appropriate place in a workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is strong enough for most agents.

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