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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that this is a 'job' (implying an async workflow needing polling) and that the export is 'bounded' and 'public', which is useful context, but it omits whether the job is async, how results are retrieved, or any rate/quota limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 5-parameter mutating creation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin — it leaves the agent without parameter guidance, workflow steps, or retrieval path after creation. Annotations cover only the safety flags.

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 schema carries no parameter meaning and the description must compensate — yet it says nothing about datasetId, cursor, format, recordLimit, or selectionStrategy. The words 'JSONL' and 'bounded' loosely gesture at format and recordLimit, but that is far from adequate coverage for 5 parameters.

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 ('Create ... export job'), so an agent knows it initiates an export rather than fetching one. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like evidence_get_export or evidence_get_export_manifest, and naming 'JSONL' is slightly misleading since the format enum also allows parquet.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus evidence_get_export (poll results) or the artifact/manifest siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., entitlement/quota requirements). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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