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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the authentication requirement ('Secret key only') and the required scope ('jobs:read'), plus the CSV/Excel output format. For a simple single-job export, this is sufficient.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It states the output, content categories, and access constraints in two short sentences. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple one-parameter input, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the output format, the data included, and the auth/scope requirements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

The schema already documents job_id fully with type and description, providing 100% parameter coverage. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names the exact deliverable—an itemized cube sheet as CSV—and enumerates the content fields (rooms, volumes, weights, exclusions). The title reinforces the resource and format, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job or list_jobs.

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 intended use is implied: call it with a job_id when you need the job's cube sheet as an Excel-ready CSV. It also states access constraints ('Secret key only. Scope: jobs:read.'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it.

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