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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value with the versioning/current-state guarantee, the SHA-256 checksum, and the licensing restriction. It still omits pagination behavior for the `after` cursor, export size/scope, and any rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with no padding, and the output characterization is front-loaded. The second sentence is a caveat rather than a usage instruction, but it is short and 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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is only partially complete: it explains the checksum/versioning but not how paging works or what an export page contains relative to the individual get_*/search_* siblings.

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%, with the `dataset` enum fully enumerated and `after` documented as an offset cursor, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which lands at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 characterizes the output ("versioned current-state public archive pages with SHA-256 checksum") but never states the action plainly, and the title "Export public records" carries most of the load. It does not distinguish this bulk-export tool from the many read_*/search_*/get_* siblings that also surface the same collections (claims, precedents, challenges). Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 a single negative constraint ("Not a licence to train or mirror private content") but no positive when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as search_claims or get_precedents. An agent cannot tell when bulk export is preferred over the per-record readers.

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