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

The description explicitly states 'Dext can archive items after an export', which is a state-changing side effect, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct conflict in the signal the agent receives. The rest of the disclosure (PDF 250-item limit, Archiving settings dependency, Cotlet API key requirement) is genuinely valuable, but the contradiction caps this dimension per the rubric.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by selection behavior, format trade-offs, the archiving caveat, and the auth requirement. Five dense sentences with no filler, though the format/limit detail could be tightened slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the outcome ('get a download link'). It covers formats, selection, size limits, the conditional archiving behavior, and the credential requirement; only details such as download-link expiry or whether the export is synchronous are 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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond it: it clarifies the item_ids-vs-filters selection logic and the practical trade-off behind the required format enum (PDF 250-item cap, ZIP for large batches). It does not add anything about the date_from/date_to boundaries.

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), the resource (items), the source scope (inbox or Archive), the output formats (CSV/PDF/ZIP), and the result (a download link). An agent can distinguish it from dext_list_items, dext_archive_items and dext_publish_items without opening any 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?

Explains the two selection modes (chosen items via item_ids vs everything matching the filters) and gives format-selection guidance (PDF caps at 250 items, ZIP suits large batches), which is actionable. It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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