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

Annotations only declare the generic hint set (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false); the description adds real operational context the annotations cannot convey: a hard 2,000-row ceiling, a signed download URL with a 24-hour validity window, and an API-key requirement. It stops short of saying whether the export is generated synchronously or as a job, which matters for a bulk operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then output artifact, then the auth constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be detailed, and the description still usefully explains the signed URL and its expiry. Auth is covered. The remaining gap is what happens at the 2,000-row boundary (truncation vs error) and whether the export is synchronous, which an agent would want before committing.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain format (JSON/CSV) and maxRows (the 2,000 cap) and 'filtered slice' hints that query/pricing/category are filters, but the 'task' parameter and the exact filter semantics of pricing/category are left entirely to the bare 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?

Specific verb ('Bulk export') plus resource ('a filtered slice of the catalogue') and output formats, which clearly separates it from search_tools/list_taxonomy style reads. It never names a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The word 'Bulk' plus the 2,000-row cap implies this is for large offline extracts rather than interactive lookup, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of search_tools when...' guidance and no stated prerequisites beyond the API key.

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