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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral facts: it returns a bundle plus content_hash and deliberately does not accept a private key (the identity-binding happens client-side). It omits permissions required, whether the operation is read-only, and any side effects, but the security model disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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-loads the purpose and then adds the essential signing note in a compact second clause. The '[KEEP · internal]' prefix is terse and slightly cryptic but costs little; overall well-sized with no padding.

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 one-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return payload and the signing model. It still leaves the meaning of 'key' and any permission/environment prerequisites unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'key', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what it is (study identifier? signing key? access key?). The description mentions a hash and signing but does not clarify the 'key' input, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (export) and resource (a study) and describes the output form (a self-contained, portable bundle). The reverse sibling study_import exists but is not named, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It explains the post-export signing workflow and clarifies that the tool will NOT take a private key, which implicitly guides the user. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like study_find or study_import, leaving usage context to inference.

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