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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the returned link works without an API key for 24 hours, the calling tool needs an API key, and the export costs no credits – all auth/cost/expiry details annotations cannot express. However it omits whether the export is produced synchronously or must be polled, which is the main behavioral unknown for a create tool.

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-loaded with the core action and format list, followed by four short sentences that each carry distinct information (snapshot semantics, link expiry, API key, cost). Only minor waste: 'csv, json or xlsx' in the first sentence duplicates the schema enum, and 'so share it only with people who should see the file' is advisory rather than operational.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the key return artifact (a shareable link valid 24 hours without an API key) plus cost and auth requirements. What is missing for a three-parameter creation tool is the lifecycle: whether the link is returned immediately or the export must be fetched later via get_export, which an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (format, locale, collectionId) is documented in the schema, including the xlsx 50,000-place limit and the locale default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the format list and adds no syntax or constraint information the schema lacks, 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 and resource (get a link to a collection's places as one file) plus the supported output formats, which is more precise than the terse title 'Export a collection'. An agent can distinguish it from get_export (retrieve an existing export) and from quote_collection/create_collection without opening a 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?

Implies usage by describing snapshot semantics ('the places the collection holds now, even if it is still running') and a sharing caveat, but never states when to call this versus the sibling get_export or what to do if the export is still being produced. The routing decision between create_export and get_export is left to inference.

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