export_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is pre-supplied. The description adds that a file artifact is created and that its location is returned — useful context — but says nothing about where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, or that a persistent artifact is produced despite the readOnly hint; the return value itself is covered by the output schema.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the outcome (where it was saved) is placed after the action. It is efficient but has no structure beyond the single clause.

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?

The tool is simple, the parameter is fully documented, and an output schema covers the return value, so the description is nearly adequate. It nonetheless leaves out the one behavioral fact an agent would want — that a file is written to disk and where — which matters for a tool annotated as read-only.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Quote or invoice number', which the description merely restates. With one fully-documented parameter, baseline 3 applies; the description adds no format, lookup, or disambiguation detail.

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 names a specific verb and artifact ('Save ... as a PDF file') plus the two document types it handles (quote or invoice), so it is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_document or list_invoices. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you need a downloadable PDF of a quote or invoice', but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_document or list_invoices, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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