export_paper

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the tool runs only inside a separately-licensed desktop app, changes require an Atelier/Portfolio licence, sections whose data the run lacks are silently omitted with a note, and an unknown layout id is a hard error. These are meaningful behavioral traits that the structured fields do not 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?

Front-loads the blocking prerequisite, then purpose, then routing, then edge cases — a sensible order with little waste. The install/pricing preamble is somewhat verbose for a tool description, but it is genuinely necessary given the tool cannot run without it.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself, listing ok, path, pages, figures, tables, omitted and the layout printed. Combined with licence gating, omission behavior and error semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including overwrite behavior, layout ids from paper_sections, and the exploratory labelling of omitted hypothesis. The description reiterates the layout-id error and hypothesis semantics but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (write/export) and resource (multi-page research paper PDF) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (abstract, numbered equations, tables, robustness section, disclosures box) for a clearly scoped input (one finished backtest run). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings export_tearsheet (one-page) and export_atlas (batch), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use ('full write-up of one run') and names both alternatives with their differing scope ('export_tearsheet makes a one-page summary and export_atlas a batch of papers'). It also states prerequisites (desktop app installed/activated, Atelier or Portfolio licence), which functions as a when-not-to-use condition.

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