Save page as PDF

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it renders the entire document, applies the page's print stylesheet, and may differ from the screen layout. This is useful and not contradicted by any annotation. It could have noted potential file overwriting, but given the annotations provided, this is strong.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains key behavioral differences, and the third offers use-case guidance and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with a detailed schema and output schema present, the description covers the key functional aspects (full-document rendering, print stylesheet, archiving use case) and distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling. It is sufficiently complete without unnecessary detail.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and effects. The description adds marginal value by relating print_background to the 'print view' behavior, but the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: exporting the current page to a PDF via Chrome's print-to-PDF. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool take_screenshot by noting that saving as PDF is for archiving, while a pixel-accurate copy would use a screenshot.

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 when to use this tool ('A good way to archive a rendered page as one file') and provides a concrete alternative ('use take_screenshot with full_page instead') for a different use case. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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