Preview White-label Report

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already indicate no side effects. The description adds the cost implication and mentions the output is a PDF, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

Two sentences plus metadata and an example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter behavior, cost warning, group label. Front-loaded with the core action. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, cost, and example. Lacks details on response format (e.g., whether PDF is returned as URL or binary) and authentication requirements, but these are implicit from context. Adequate for an agent.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains the chart parameter's role (use own data vs sample) and the language parameter via example. However, the chart parameter's internal structure is not described, leaving ambiguity for an agent needing to construct it.

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 states the tool renders a sample natal report PDF using the user's white-label configuration. It distinguishes from siblings like whitelabel_logo and render_wheel_western by specifying the output type (PDF report) and the use of white-label settings.

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 when to pass the chart parameter vs omitting it for a bundled sample. It includes a prominent cost warning ('Premium — ~50% of free monthly budget. Confirm with user before invoking.'), guiding agents to seek user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it.

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