export_audit_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool re-runs the audit, writes a .pdf to disk, and returns the file path. It also notes the optional PageSpeed metrics. No contradictions observed.

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 sentences: first explains what the tool produces, second explains the process and return value, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, process, return value, and usage context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the tool's behavior (re-running audit, writing to disk) but does not provide additional meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema already describes. The parameters are adequately documented.

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 uses specific verbs and nouns: 'Generate a professionally laid-out PDF report of an on-page SEO audit' and enumerates report contents. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is used after audit_page and can include PageSpeed metrics, which other tools do not provide as a 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 explicitly states 'Use this after audit_page when the user asks for a PDF report.' This provides clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond audit_page.

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