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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: it states that NO file content is returned, that download_url opens a signed-in browser session, and that include_signed_url yields SENSITIVE credential-bearing data to be surfaced only on explicit user request. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then polling guidance, then the size caveat and the signed-URL warning. Dense but every clause carries operational information; the one long sensitivity sentence is slightly heavy but justified.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden: it names every field, explains download_url semantics, and clarifies that file content is absent. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it frames signed_download_url as login-less sensitive data and gives an explicit policy for when to request and repeat it, plus the null-when-too-large behavior tied to export contents.

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 ('Show a single export created with create_export') and immediately enumerates the fields returned (status, name, filters, timestamps, download_url). An agent can distinguish it from list_exports and create_export without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: poll again while pending/processing with a stated ~5 minute expectation, and route to create_export with a narrower date range when the slice is too large. It does not explicitly name list_exports as the alternative for enumerating exports, but the single-export scoping makes the boundary inferable.

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