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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the meaning of each status value, that failed exports can be restarted, that the download link persists for repeat fetches, and the Cotlet API key/scope requirement.

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 core purpose and is reasonably tight, with the auth note correctly last. There is mild redundancy between 'Status of an export' and 'Returns the status of one export from the Export hub', which costs a point but not much.

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 burden well by naming the status values and the download link, and it covers auth and retry. It stops short of explaining pagination or polling cadence, but nothing essential for a single-ID status lookup 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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents export_id and points at export_lead_report as its source. The description adds no format, validity, or lifecycle detail about the ID, so the 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+resource (get the status of one export) and enumerates the exact return states (pending, generating, completed, error) plus the download link. An agent can tell this apart from crexi_export_lead_report, the tool that actually starts an export, because the description frames this one as observing/retrieving rather than creating.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: use it to poll an export's progress, and on 'error' you can start it again, and a completed export can be re-fetched later. It never names the sibling tool that starts the export, so the routing to export_lead_report is left implicit rather than explicit.

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