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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — the mandatory check gate, the handling of blocking items, and the sectioned structure of what is produced. The one gap is the output form (file download vs. rendered markdown vs. inline text), which matters for a tool literally named 'export' and is not stated.

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 structure is front-loaded and purposeful: trigger phrases, then the prerequisite/gate warning, then the output contents. The long parenthetical section list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what the export contains; minor tightening (e.g., trimming duplicate trigger phrases) would make it a 5.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema export tool, the description covers the trigger, the prerequisite gate, the failure handling, and the returned content sections, which is close to everything an agent needs. The missing piece is delivery mechanics — output format/location — which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting project_id as 「课题 id」. The description adds no further meaning such as what happens if the project id is unknown or whether it must be the design-stage project; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource (export the full research protocol) and enumerates the exported content (title/PICO/design/hypotheses/eligibility/sample size/ethics/variable dictionary/intervention/randomization/bias/budget). It distinguishes itself from the sibling act_design_export_check by framing that tool as the pre-flight check and this one as the actual export.

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?

It lists concrete user phrasings that should route here (「把方案导出来」「给我完整的方案书」「生成方案文档」) and states an explicit prerequisite: run the pre-export check first, and if blocking items exist, report them truthfully rather than exporting. That is an explicit when-to-use plus a when-not-to-proceed condition with a named alternative.

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