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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false already flagging side effects, the description adds that the operation only creates drafts and returns IDs, rather than finalizing them, and that all orders are grouped under one project. This meaningfully shapes an agent's expectations beyond the annotations.

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, all substantive, with the key scoping rule ('call once per project') clearly stated. No filler or repetition.

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 create-draft tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential workflow (draft creation, ID return, submission gating) and the main constraint (single project per call). It doesn't enumerate optional order fields, but those are documented in the schema, so nothing critical 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?

The schema already documents projectId well and covers roughly half of the order fields with rich descriptions (dates, recipients, reportIdentifier). The description adds only the 'profile-url orders' requirement and the single-project constraint, but does not compensate for the undocumented top-level orders property or optional fields.

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?

Opens with the specific action 'Creates one or more SMI export drafts' and identifies the input source ('profile-url orders') and outcome ('Returns the draft ids'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get/submit export tools.

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 gives concrete usage context: it is the draft-creation step, for review before submission, and mandates one call per project so no call spans projects. It does not explicitly name the submit alternative (smi_submit_exports) or exclusion cases, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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