export_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states refusal conditions, the fact that the XML is embedded as an attachment, and why a link is returned instead of the file. It also discloses the naming constraint regarding reading the name back from the link. These are critical behaviors with no contradiction from annotations (none present).

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds crucial information: purpose, validation refusals, XML embedding, link response rationale, and naming constraints. It is front-loaded with purpose, and the structure flows logically. Slightly lengthy, but no redundant content.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned (a link) and how to use it. It covers all necessary operational aspects: validation, attachment, link handling, and naming. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly 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?

The only parameter (draft_id) is fully described in the schema, but the description adds valuable extra context: the constraint that a draft meant for a PDF should have an ordinary name readable from the link. This goes beyond the schema's 'Name of the draft' and gives the agent deeper insight into parameter validity.

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 opens with a clear and specific action: 'Lay the finished CV out as a PDF, with its Europass XML inside it.' It identifies the resource (finished CV) and the output (PDF with embedded XML). It also distinguishes itself from export_xml by mentioning validation and the XML attachment, making it clear what this tool uniquely does.

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 explains refusal conditions (invalid draft, server cannot make PDFs) and instructs the agent on how to handle the result (give the link to the user or read the resource). It contrasts with export_xml by referencing validation behavior, but does not explicitly list alternative tools for different scenarios. Still, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool and what to do with the response.

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