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

Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the api_key requirement for open runs and the document's internal structure. readOnlyHint is consistent with 'Export'. No contradictions. It doesn't mention response format, but the description compensates with run-state specifics.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence is information-dense but coherent; the second clarifies the api_key condition. Every phrase earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the OSCAL document will contain (reviewed-controls, observations, props). It also addresses run state, which is key for usage. Missing minor details like exact serialization format, but overall complete for a straightforward export tool.

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 already covers both parameters well (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that api_key is needed specifically for open runs, and that run_id refers to the run to export. This is a meaningful addition over the schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'Export' and resource: 'a governed run's evidence as a NIST OSCAL assessment-results document'. It also enumerates specific content items (reviewed-controls, observations, props), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_run or seal_run.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for exporting to OSCAL for GRC/audit tooling. It gives a usage condition ('A sealed run is readable by id; a still-open run needs your api_key') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it. The context is sufficient for most use cases.

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