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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the per-hour rate limit ('Up to 5 per hour') and the exact payload scope. It stops short of noting output size or handling for very large accounts.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the concrete contents list, the equivalence hint, and the rate limit. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so precisely (single JSON doc plus enumerated entity types). Rate limit and read-only nature round out what an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible—it exports everything—which is the relevant semantic fact.

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 ('Exports everything the user can read in Decknote as one JSON document') and enumerates the included entities (boards, lists, cards, checklists, comments, attachment metadata). This is clearly distinct from the single-entity siblings like get_board or list_boards.

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?

Frames the use case by equating it with 'Settings → Your data', which tells the agent this is the full-account bulk export rather than a targeted query. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but among the siblings there is no competing export tool, so the context is adequately clear.

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