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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates what the exported document contains (compliance status, 6W extraction, hash chain, policy snapshot), which is real behavioral context. But 'Exports' is ambiguous — it never says whether the result is returned inline, written to a file, or persisted, nor what permissions or side effects are involved.

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, front-loaded with the action and output format, then the payload contents. Dense but every clause contributes; only mild jargon load (DPU, 6W) that is partially self-explaining.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does compensate by describing the exported document's contents. Missing is the delivery mechanism (inline string vs file) and error behavior for an invalid ID, but for a single-parameter export tool the coverage is solid.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'id' is the DPU ID to export. The description adds no format, validation, or lookup-failure semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Exports a Decision Proof Unit as a JSON-LD v2.0 proof document' with a named ontology (Cronozen Evidence Ontology). This is clearly distinct from siblings like proof_verify or proof_get, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing an interoperable JSON-LD artifact versus the raw lookups in proof_get. There is no statement of when to prefer it over proof_get or proof_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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