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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: response caching is 'private, no-store', post-expiry access still allows export, subscriptions cannot be bought via API key, and uploaded text must be treated as untrusted data. This is real context beyond the structured fields, though much of it is account policy rather than export mechanics.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but it's followed by a dense run-on covering pricing, publishing rules, upload behavior, removal semantics and prompt-injection policy — most of which is irrelevant to performing an export. Several sentences (e.g. 'Upload and replacement never publish new text') do not earn their place here.

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 read/export tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers access model, quotas, caching and safety posture. The main remaining gap is what the call actually returns (download URL vs. archive stream), but overall it's sufficient to invoke correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('The 64-character ID returned by the API'), the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about base_id format, source, or validity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening 'Get the private OKF ZIP download' names a verb and resource, but 'OKF' is unexplained jargon and it's ambiguous whether the result is a URL or the archive bytes. 'Personal-account operations' hints at scope but the description never names public_export_base or team_export_base, so an agent can't cleanly separate this from its near-identical siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to the obvious alternatives (public_export_base, team_export_base) despite them sitting right beside it in the sibling list. The policy statements about quotas and expired capacity are background facts, not conditions telling the agent when to pick this tool.

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