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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context ('as SVG or PNG files', 'a ZIP link for many'), but says nothing about how output is delivered (URLs vs. embedded data) or any failure/limits for large asset lists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the addressing modes and bulk behavior come first. The trailing 'a ZIP link for many' is slightly cryptic but dense rather than wasteful.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves key gaps: what is actually returned (file URLs, inline data, or a ZIP), what 'scales' does, and whether zero assets requests everything or errors. For a retrieval tool without an output schema this is under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers assets, format and artboard loosely, but the 'scales' parameter is never explained (presumably PNG multipliers) and the artboard anyOf (integer vs. string) distinction between id and name is left unclear.

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 concrete verb and resource set ('Get drawings and icons as SVG or PNG files') plus the two addressing modes (asset id or artboard) and the bulk path (ZIP for many). This separates it from export_document/export_artboard, though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'by asset id or artboard; a ZIP link for many' implies when to use single vs. bulk retrieval, but there is no explicit when/when-not or named alternative among the many export_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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