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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: the exported file excludes sensitive IDs and account details, making it safe to share. It also notes that drafts cannot be exported. This goes beyond the annotation signal.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. The final sentence about drafts is slightly awkward and less direct, but the overall structure is tight and economical.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description does a good job: it defines the output as a shareable template containing trigger, keyword, and message, and notes a key limitation. A bit more detail on the exact download behavior could help, but nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, 'automation_id', with 'The automation id to export.' The description adds context about what an auto reply is and what the template contains, but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter's meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Download one Instagram auto reply as a shareable template') and identifies the resource and content. It is distinct from the sibling import tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling in the description.

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 of sharing a safe, non-sensitive template implies when to use this tool, and the draft limitation hints at a boundary, but it does not explicitly describe when to use an alternative or provide a when-not-to-use guide.

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