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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about id prefix resolution, but doesn't describe behavior like pagination, error conditions, or return structure. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and id requirement, followed by a direct routing rule. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. This is concise and well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations fully disclose safety, the description covers the essential context for correct invocation. It misses potential error conditions or what constitutes an 'export', but the combination of schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already describes both parameters in detail, including the prefix resolution and the 'include' enum. The description primarily restates the id prefix logic without adding new meaning not already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Fetches a single SMI export by id', clearly identifying the verb (fetches), resource (SMI export), and identifier (id). It mentions product-prefixed ids and differentiates from smi_get_deep_report, but overall clarity is strong. Scoring 4 because it is clear but not fully comprehensive about what an 'export' is.

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 explicitly says 'EX-30001 resolves here, while RB and DR ids belong to smi_get_deep_report', giving direct guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling. It stops short of explaining when not to use it beyond the id prefix, and the parameter schema also clarifies routing, but no alternative scenarios for the 'include' parameter are mentioned.

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