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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows the operation can modify state. The description adds crucial context: it explains that this call starts the next render pass (a side effect), that it is free with no new charge, and it details the return values including renderChecks and what to do with incomplete checks.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the status query purpose, then adds necessary behavioral details and a warning. While somewhat dense, every sentence earns its place by covering states, return values, side effects, cost, and a safety rule.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (status check with a side effect), the description covers all essential aspects: possible states, detailed render checks, the fact that it can start the next render pass, cost implications, and a handling guideline. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately details return values.

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 50% (export_id has a description, project_id does not). The description does not compensate by explaining the parameters or their roles. It implies both are needed to identify an export but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (get status) and resource (export) and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like export_editor_project by focusing on checking the status of an existing export. It enumerates the possible states and the detailed render checks returned.

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 description gives clear context for use: after initiating an export, use this to check status; when a render pass finishes and more remain, this call starts the next pass. It also includes a handling rule for open renderChecks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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