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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable scope context: the returned material is the user's own stored data and explicitly not the assistant's records, which clarifies the data boundary. It does not discuss completeness of the export or timing, but that is minor given annotations and an output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary usage condition followed by a tight exclusion list. No redundant restatement of the title or name, and every sentence carries actionable routing information.

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 simple (one optional parameter, read-only, output schema present), and the description covers trigger conditions and boundaries adequately. It is not fully complete because it never states that no authentication or setup is needed and never characterizes the breadth of returned data, but the output schema and annotations absorb much of that burden.

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% and the single `tap` parameter is documented in the schema as coming from keep_progress, with instruction to leave it empty if none exists. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 conveys a specific resource and intent: 'what 2hives keeps about them' and 'a copy of their 2hives data', which reads as retrieving the user's own stored data. It is distinguishable from the destructive sibling delete_my_2hives_data by framing, even though no sibling is named. The verb is phrased as a user-intent trigger rather than an explicit 'retrieve/export', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('user asks what 2hives keeps about them, or wants a copy of their 2hives data') plus clear when-not-to-use exclusions for medical questions, emergencies, crises, and the assistant's own records. It does not point to a specific alternative tool (e.g., delete_my_2hives_data or account_link), so it stops short of a 5.

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