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

Although the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds essential behavioral context beyond these flags. It discloses that the tool does not return binary data but a shell command, explains the reasons (size constraints), and notes the external API key requirement. This is valuable transparency that annotations don't capture.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value—what it does and why you must run it externally. No fluff or repetition; it is perfectly sized for the content.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately implies the return value (a URL and curl command). It covers usage context, prerequisites, and scope, providing enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The schema richly documents parameters, and annotations cover safety, so the description is complete for its complexity.

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 provides 100% parameter documentation with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as mapping 'target' to bundle types and confirming that 'size' applies only toaser character exports, but these are partially reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 clearly states the tool builds an authenticated download URL and a ready-to-run curl command for zip exports, covering character, asset, and map bundles. It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by specifying the output is a command to run externally, not an actual download.

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 explains when to use this tool (when you need a downloadable export) and provides a critical usage instruction: run the curl in your own shell because zips are multi-MB binaries that must not pass through the model. It also mentions the prerequisite of SPRITESHIP_API_KEY, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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