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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, which is thin for a tool that fires a server-side job; the description fills that gap by disclosing the four-phase job lifecycle, the latency expectation ('up to a few minutes on a live pod'), and that the response is a summary rather than the file. It does not say whether job artifacts persist server-side or when to use the connection/jobName overrides instead of defaults, so it stops just short of full disclosure.

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, all front-loaded with the highest-value facts in order: what it does, what it returns, how long it takes, then routing to the alternative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 does the necessary work of describing the return shape and the timing cost, and it routes to alternatives. It is slightly underspecified on the result itself — how many names constitute the 'sample', and whether counts are per-dimension only or include totals — which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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% and every parameter already carries a description including its default, so the schema carries the load. The description only implies the dimensions filtering role indirectly through 'sample of names per dimension' and adds no format, interaction, or precedence semantics beyond what the schema states — baseline 3.

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 the outline of an application), names the mechanism (Export Metadata job with submit/wait/download/parse), and explicitly bounds the output (member counts and a sample of names, not the raw file). It also names the sibling it is not (get_dimension_metadata for one dimension's full member list), so an agent can discriminate without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use cases (size an outline, confirm dimensions and members exist) and names the alternative with the condition that selects it (get_dimension_metadata for a single dimension's full member list). Nothing is left to inference about routing between the two tools.

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