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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains why readOnlyHint is false for a read-shaped export (the request is written to the privacy audit log), discloses a refusal condition tied to site privacy settings, and states a handling rule for personal data. It even sketches the response contents despite there being no output schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with the audit-log and refusal facts each doing real work. Minor slack in "in full" and the trailing "to pass to that person" clause, which restates the handling warning.

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 compliance-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, refusal behavior, side effects and data-handling obligations. It leaves open the empty-result case and the output shape/delivery mechanism, which matter for an agent reporting back on a DSAR.

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 email, site_id and user_goal are already fully documented, and the schema's email description ("exactly as they gave it") carries the tricky semantics. The description reinforces the single-email, single-site scope but adds no new format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 with tight scope: everything held for *one* email address, and it enumerates the record types (contacts, form submissions, contact activity). That per-person scope implicitly separates it from the bulk siblings export_contacts_csv and export_site_data, but no sibling is named so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Names the triggering scenario directly ("Answer a data-subject access request") and states a precondition for failure (refused when privacy settings disable export requests). It stops short of explicitly routing away from the similar exports/deletion siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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