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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: DNP parts are omitted from the export and the resulting artifacts are named workspace.step and workspace.zip. It does not, however, mention job/permission behavior beyond what the wait_s schema already covers.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the artifact naming detail. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (workspace.step, workspace.zip) and noting the DNP exclusion. Combined with the wait_s job-following note in the schema, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result, though the exact response shape is not spelled out.

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 (design_id, wait_s) are fully documented in the schema, including the job-following behavior for wait_s. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Export the assembled board as STEP') and qualifies the scope with parenthetical detail about 3D models and DNP exclusions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like render_board, upload_board, or get_downloads without opening any schema.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (you want a STEP 3D export), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for adjacent needs such as retrieving the artifact (get_downloads) or producing an image (render_board). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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