Get a URL of the content of a space as PDF

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already disclose that the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the tool returns a URL, which is helpful, and the body parameter example ({ limit, page }) hints at pagination. However, it does not specify the URL's duration, format, or any potential side effects, so it adds only moderate context beyond annotations.

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 comprised of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It includes the HTTP method and path in parentheses, which is informative without adding length. Every part of the description serves a clear purpose.

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 (no output schema, straightforward parameters), the description adequately covers the functionality: it returns a URL for a space PDF, with optional query parameters for pagination. It does not elaborate on error handling or URL expiration, but for a read-only operation, this level of detail is generally sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (spaceId and body), achieving 100% coverage. The description for body includes a concrete example ({ limit, page }), adding valuable semantic context beyond the schema's basic explanation. The spaceId description is minimal but sufficient for a path parameter.

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 that the tool retrieves a URL for the PDF of a space's content, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'space PDF URL'. It also includes the HTTP method and path, making the purpose unmistakable. Among siblings, it uniquely targets space PDFs, distinguishing from similar tools like gitbook_get_change_request_pdf.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gitbook_get_change_request_pdf. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The context is implied by the tool name but not elaborated.

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