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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the return composition (CSV files, sourced research-notes document, CRM import steps) and the auth/record prerequisites. It omits any detail on file count, size, or failure modes if the record is missing.

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 what is produced, then parameters, then prerequisites. No redundant or filler text.

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 only two required params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, inputs, return artifacts, and prerequisite conditions. Nothing material an agent needs 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% with both parameters documented and format's enum spelled out, so the description repeating 'pass company and format (hubspot or salesforce)' adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (export) and resource (one company's deep-research record) plus the output form (CRM import files), which distinguishes it from siblings like deep_record and research_status. An agent can tell exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: an existing deep-research record and an active Whimbrel key, and points to the format choice. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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