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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the output is CSV text and that ledger mode includes opt-in proof, which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is very concise, though the lack of an explicit verb slightly reduces clarity.

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?

For a simple read-only export tool, the description covers the output format and the two data options, which is enough to invoke it. However, it does not disambiguate from the sibling export_csv tool, leaving an agent to infer which export to use when both are available.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both enum values by describing what each mode returns (suppression list vs. consent ledger with opt-in proof), effectively documenting the single 'type' parameter even though it does not restate the default.

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 the data being exported (suppression list or consent ledger) and the output format (CSV text), so the resource is clear. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like export_csv or list_opt_outs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose export_consent over export_csv, list_opt_outs, or get_consent. The two modes are implied by the description, but no context or exclusions are provided for selecting this tool.

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