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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: private data, OAuth/scoped credential requirement, API key requirement, cost, and capped-list behavior. This helps an agent understand access constraints and side effects without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences contain all essential information: purpose, key parameter behavior, auth requirements, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no fluff. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers auth, cap behavior, and optional links, and the remaining parameters are inferrable from their names and defaults. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling get_* tools, though the private-export framing mitigates that 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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does explain full=true and the optional event-people links, but max_people and event_links_limit are not semantically described beyond their names and defaults. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves numeric parameter behavior under-specified.

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 resource (private life-graph export) and enumerates its contents: favorites/VIP, people with edges or recent event tags. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_people or get_life_context. The verb 'export' plus the resource makes the tool's function immediately identifiable.

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 gives context that this is an explicit private export and provides parameter-level guidance (full=true, optional event links), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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