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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating, non-idempotent, external-facing nature is covered. The description contributes a genuinely useful behavioral fact — the link is "short-lived" — but never quantifies the expiry or says whether repeated calls mint new links.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing leaves room for one more clarifying clause at little cost.

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 only two required parameters and no output schema, most structural burden is already carried by the schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, for an open-world, non-idempotent tool it omits link lifetime and whether the returned URL is single-use, leaving a real gap.

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 carries the full burden, and it only partially compensates: it explains file_format's two values (already enumerable from the schema) and hints that job_id must reference a completed batch. It adds no detail on job_id format or where to obtain it.

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 names a specific verb ("Create") and resource ("export link") with format scope (CSV or JSON) and a precondition (completed batch). No sibling tool covers export, so differentiation is implicit, but an agent can still tell this apart from get_batch and list_batches from the wording alone.

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?

"For a completed batch" implies the state prerequisite — the batch must be finished before exporting — but this is left implicit rather than stated as a rule. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, and it doesn't tell the agent to call get_batch first to confirm completion.

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