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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: render status/progress and the presence of signed download URLs on completed exports. This informs the agent about the data shape and what to expect, without contradicting annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the key differentiator (single export via exportId). Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations, complete parameter schemas, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, the main data included (status/progress, signed URLs), and the single-record mode. No additional context is necessary.

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%, with each parameter clearly explained. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond saying 'Pass exportId,' which the schema already documents. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden.

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 tool's purpose: 'List exports with render status and progress.' It also distinguishes two modes — listing all exports vs. returning one by exportId — which separates this from sibling tools like exports_start. The verb 'List' and resource 'exports' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides clear usage context: it lists exports with status/progress and notes that completed exports include signed download URLs. It also instructs when to pass exportId to retrieve a single export. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the single-vs-list distinction serves as effective usage guidance.

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