export_comparison_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the 5-minute URL validity, 2-second polling interval, 3-minute timeout, return shapes for both wait values, the readiness prerequisite, watermarking policy based on credits, and the fact that no credits are consumed.

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 compact yet information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then succinctly explains the two wait modes. Each sentence earns its place without 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: return objects for both wait settings, prerequisites, polling details, watermark differences, URL expiration, and credit impact. This fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly for a complex export operation.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the wait parameter in depth (polling behavior, return payloads) and the prerequisite on comparison_id. It does not rehash locale or include_unchanged, which are already self-explanatory in the 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: "Export a finished comparison as a PDF report and return a temporary download URL." It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_text_diff, summarize_visual_diff) by focusing on PDF export rather than inline diff or summary output.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires the comparison to have status="ready", and it explains the two wait-mode workflows (blocking with polling vs. immediate return). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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