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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return value (export_id), the required follow-up workflow, the side effect (adds a file to the Exports section, deletable there), that no one is contacted, and the auth prerequisite (Cotlet API key with app access). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and stays compact, though 'Start a Lead Report export' is restated twice in nearby sentences. The key operational facts (poll get_export, no one reached, writes only to Exports) are easy to extract.

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 no-output-schema async export tool, the description covers everything needed: how to start it, what it returns, how to poll for completion, its side effect, and the auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the schema documents from/to fully. The description still adds date semantics beyond the schema: the 'last 30 days' default and the 12-month maximum lookback, which frame how the params should be set.

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 ('Start a Lead Report export') and ties it to the familiar UI action ('the same as Export Lead Report in Lead Activity'). An agent can distinguish it from the read-side sibling crexi_get_export, which is explicitly named as the polling counterpart.

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?

Provides clear usage context: start the export here, then poll get_export until status is completed, with the default 30-day window and 12-month max range. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or settling the choice between this and other Crexi lead tools, but the start-then-poll workflow is unambiguous.

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