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 real behavioral traits: the export is logged (audit side effect) and it is non-destructive to recordings and deleted content. It omits permission requirements, whether the export is synchronous, and any size/rate constraints, but the side-effect and negative-guarantee disclosure is meaningful.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the clarifying constraint second. No filler; every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey what the snapshot actually contains, but "retained evidence" and "audit snapshot" remain vague about the exported payload. Combined with 0% parameter documentation, the definition is adequate but leaves gaps for a 3-param export tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly documents the format parameter ("Markdown or structured JSON"), but adds nothing about the id vs workspaceId distinction or their expected values, leaving two required parameters unexplained.

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 (the contact's retained evidence) plus the output forms (Markdown or JSON audit snapshot), which is far more specific than siblings like contacts_erase or contacts_history. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks (e.g., contacts_history, artifacts_export), so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides negative scoping ("does not create recordings or recover deleted content"), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. However, it never states when to use this over contacts_history or artifacts_export, leaving usage largely inferred.

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