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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the unguessable 128-bit token URL, the ~15-minute expiry, that a re-run is required for a fresh link, and that file bytes are never returned inline. The non-idempotent annotation is explained rather than merely declared, and the content of the file (names, emails, custom fields, personal links) is spelled out.

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-loaded with the core action and scope, then layers behavioral detail efficiently. Mild redundancy: 'The link is temporary' restates the earlier '~15 minutes' expiry sentence.

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?

With only one fully documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including the asynchronous download-link pattern. It could be tightened by removing the redundant closing sentence, but nothing material is missing.

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% and the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (8-character publication code, example, source tool). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Exports the respondents pipeline report ... as XLSX') plus the exact scope ('one row per respondent across all respondent lists assigned to the survey's publication'). This cleanly separates it from export_respondents_csv and export_respondents_spss without opening any schema.

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 description implies its usage context (pulling contact data for a survey's respondent lists) and offers a useful re-run hint for expired links, but it never states when to choose this format over export_respondents_csv or export_respondents_spss, nor any prerequisites. With three near-identical siblings, that omission is a real gap.

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