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 covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that download_url requires the API key and that a temporary URL must be obtained via scout_get_export — an auth/flow detail the annotations cannot convey. Pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the download/auth note and the sibling pointer. Nothing is redundant, though the line break mid-sentence is slightly awkward and the first sentence could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on how to act on download_url. The remaining gap is the undocumented project_id, which is a minor but real omission for a single-parameter list tool.

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 single project_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does imply project scoping ('of a project') and ties the output to that project, but never states the parameter name, format, or whether it is required versus optional. Enough to be usable, not enough to be complete.

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 and resource ('List the export files of a project') and enumerates the contents (scraped products and prices, matches), so an agent can distinguish it from the numerous list_* siblings. It also implicitly differentiates from scout_get_export by framing that tool as the way to obtain a temporary URL rather than the listing itself.

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 a clear follow-up path: use scout_get_export to get a temporary URL of a file, and notes the API key requirement for download_url. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against scout_get_url_results or scout_list_jobs, so sibling routing is only partially covered, but the primary next-step guidance is present.

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