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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description layers on non-obvious behavior: a 24-hour link TTL, the 404 conditions, the API-key requirement, and that it costs no credits. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the expiry constraint, then auth/cost. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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, so the description compensates by naming the return payload (download link) and its lifetime. With one fully described parameter and annotations covering safety, nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its UUID format and that create_export returned it. The description adds no additional format or sourcing detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read an export') with the primary payload named (the download link) and a scope constraint (only while the link still works). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_export by telling the agent to make a new export rather than re-use this one.

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 explicit failure conditions (after 24 hours, or once the collection's places are deleted, it answers 404) and the corrective action (make a new export from the collection). An agent knows exactly when this call is valid and what to do when it isn't.

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