openpanel_export_report_pdf

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds context that project_id can be sourced from environment variables, but fails to describe what happens to the PDF output (returned as binary? uploaded? downloaded?), side effects, or rate limiting.

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?

Brief two-sentence structure. '[UNIFIED]' tag wastes space without aiding agent understanding. Parameter note is useful but buried at end rather than paired with parameter context.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, description should document parameters and output behavior. Currently insufficient—missing report_type enumeration, date format specification, and PDF delivery mechanism.

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 coverage is 0% with 4 undocumented parameters. Description only adds semantics for project_id (optional via env). Fails to explain 'site' (domain vs ID), 'report_type' (valid values), or 'date_range' format (default '30d' mentioned only in schema).

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?

Clear verb (Export) + resource (report) + format (PDF). Distinguishes from sibling 'openpanel_export_events_csv' by output format. '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the specific purpose.

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?

Only provides usage guidance for project_id optionality. Lacks guidance on when to choose this over other OpenPanel export tools (e.g., export_events_csv vs PDF), valid report_type values, or required prerequisites.

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