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

Annotations already establish the safe/idempotent/read-only profile, and the description adds real context on top: it is free, must be polled at a cadence, returns artifact size and expiry when ready, returns actionable failure reasons, and gates get_project_export_command on readiness. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four short clauses, each load-bearing: cost, action, polling cadence, result semantics, failure handling, and the sibling handoff. The key constraint (FREE, poll cadence) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain return content (artifact size, expiry, failure remediation) and the polling workflow. The remaining gap is parameter provenance, which is not addressed anywhere.

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% and both jobId and projectId are required, yet the description never explains what the identifiers are (e.g., from start_project_export) or their relationship to the job. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 and resource ('Read a queued export job') and scopes it to queued/running/ready/failed states. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_export_command, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete polling cadence ('about every two seconds') and names the alternative with the exact condition for switching to it ('Use get_project_export_command only once ready'). This is explicit when-to-use plus a routing rule to the sibling.

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