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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the output is a downloadable artifact including a manifest, chain-integrity proof, and latest signed checkpoint, and that the result is independently verifiable. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but for an export tool the given detail is substantial and goes beyond a simple 'generates export' statement.

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 a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Generates a signed export bundle'). All sentences contribute relevant information (format, regime, artifact contents). Slightly verbose due to packing many details, but no fluff; still concise enough for an MCP tool with four parameters.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return value (a downloadable artifact with manifest, proof, checkpoint) and mentions verification context, covering what an agent needs to invoke it. It doesn't detail every edge case or error behavior, but given the schema coverage and description richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the time window is optional, identifies format choices ('signed_json | csv | eat | stix'), states the default behavior (profile's first), and clarifies the 'regime' override semantics. This enriches the bare parameter descriptions and justifies a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and names the resource ('signed export bundle of your ledger') with detailed contents. It clearly distinguishes this export tool from siblings like audit_export by emphasizing the signed bundle, chain-integrity proof, and regime mapping.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: choose format via ?format= and override regime via ?regime=. It implies the optional time window and default format behavior, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks an explicit exclusion clause, so not a 5.

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