Export formatted report (HTML / PDF)

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: HTML is one self-contained file with embedded Arabic/Latin fonts, inline SVG charts, citations and the manifest; PDF is rendered by local headless Chrome/Chromium/Edge and silently degrades to HTML with an explanation if unavailable; Arabic locale is right-to-left. It also discloses the return shape (a resource link unless `inline` is true).

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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by format, locale, and return semantics in a sensible order. Every clause carries information; it is slightly long and clause-heavy but not padded.

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 9-parameter, no-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input modes, format trade-offs and fallbacks, locale/RTL behavior, and the return mechanism. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not: `country` and `markdown` are mutually exclusive inputs, and `inline` toggles between an inline file and an `export://` resource link. It also restates the html default and the PDF fallback behavior, which enriches `format` beyond its enum description.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and a precisely scoped resource (a print-ready, self-contained document), then names the two input modes: a full country report via `country`, or another tool's markdown via `markdown`. This distinguishes it cleanly from `generate_country_report` (which produces the report) and `export_data` (which exports data, not a formatted document).

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?

Gives clear usage context: pass `country` for a full report, pass `markdown` for output from tools like `trend_analysis` or `durable_solutions` (and says to omit `country` in that case). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, `generate_country_report`, or state when not to export (e.g. for machine-readable data).

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