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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the output is *merged* Markdown and is *returned inline in the MCP response* rather than as a file/download, which materially changes how an agent should handle the result. It does not disclose size limits, truncation, or behavior on very large exports.

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 primary use case, then the read-only guarantee, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating that output is merged Markdown returned in the response, and the read-only nature is covered twice (annotation plus prose). It leaves gaps around large-export limits, error cases for invalid item IDs, and whether item_ids must all belong to space_id.

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%, so both parameters (space_id, item_ids) are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only mild extra meaning by clarifying that selectable items span pages, folders, and docs, which suggests heterogeneous item types in item_ids, but it adds no format, limit, or ordering guidance for the ID array.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Markdown export of selected Space pages, folders, or docs') plus the output channel, which is enough to distinguish it from read siblings like get-space-document. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, and the ambiguity with copy-space-item is only implicitly resolved by the 'returned in the MCP response' phrasing.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('when the user wants a Markdown export ... returned in the MCP response') and an explicit exclusion for PDF, ZIP, and download-only flows. The redirect points at a generic 'browser guidance' flow rather than a concrete sibling tool, so the routing instruction is directional but not fully actionable.

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