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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard seven-day lookback window, newest-first ordering, and per-export status in the results. It stops short of noting pagination/limit behavior or what an empty result looks like.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering before the use case, with no filler. The trailing clause 'an export that runs already' is slightly awkward phrasing that costs a bit of clarity.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: what is listed, the time window, the order, and that status is included. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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% — siteId is documented as coming from list_sites and limit carries its 1-20 range and default. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource with concrete scope: exports of a site's database, limited to the last seven days, sorted newest first, each with its status. That is enough to distinguish it from get_site_database_export (singular detail fetch) and start_site_database_export, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use it to find an export that runs already' gives one positive use case, so the intent is inferable. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternatives (fetch a single export's details via get_site_database_export, or create one via start_site_database_export), which would make routing unambiguous.

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