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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description adds real value beyond annotations: a 20-row cap with a total count, the field shape of each row, and the fact that result URLs are signed, login-free, and expire after 24 h. It stops short of describing pagination/offset mechanics for retrieving beyond 20 rows.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the detail about counts and URL validity. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical ellipsis '(download_url, herkunft.pdf_url, …)' is slightly loose but harmless.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates row fields, states the result cap and total count, and explains URL validity and auth-free access. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (including 'from lab_list_projects'), so the description's 'for a project' adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List past export jobs for a project') plus the scope of the returned rows (job_id, status, profile). It also names the sibling lab_get_export, so an agent can separate the list operation from the single-export fetch without opening a 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?

The description implies usage (listing historical export jobs for a project) and contrasts implicitly with lab_get_export by saying rows carry 'the same' addresses, but it never states when to prefer this over lab_get_export or lab_export_profiles, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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