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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the download link appears only once the export is ready. It says nothing about possible status values, link expiry, or whether repeated polling has any cost.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and status, with the conditional download link placed after. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it names only 'status' and 'download link' without enumerating states or indicating what an unfinished or failed export looks like. For a small single-parameter read tool that is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0% for the single export_id parameter, so the description carries the burden and only weakly implies that the id identifies 'an Excel export'. It adds no format, origin (e.g., returned by export_model or list_exports), or validity meaning, though with only one obvious identifier parameter the gap is small.

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 the resource (an Excel export) and states both what is returned (status) and the conditional extra (download link when ready), which an agent can distinguish from list_exports or export_model. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'poll', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an action statement.

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: 'when it is ready' hints at a poll-until-complete workflow keyed on a known export_id. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_exports, nor any note about waiting before first polling or how to obtain the export_id.

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