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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behaviors: background job execution, deduplication (returns same run_id if already running), 24-hour download validity, and the result structure. It does not discuss side effects like disk cleanup, but readability is high and important operational details are disclosed.

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?

The description is well-structured: the main purpose comes first, followed by operational details (background job, polling, deduplication, URL validity). It is longer than a single sentence but every sentence delivers necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and how to retrieve results (poll runs.get). Since there is no output schema, it appropriately explains the run result's download_url and validity. It lacks details on manifest.json structure or error handling, but for a background export tool it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default for tools ('every tool when omitted') and the condition for tenant_key (only needed when no auth header, header wins). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, so a score above baseline.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (build a downloadable .tar.gz), the resource (everything this tenant owns), and enumerates contents (tool sources, state, secret names, history, usage, manifest.json). It distinguishes itself from siblings like host.tool_publish and host.runs.get by stating the export scope and re-publishability.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use (when a full tenant export is needed) and how it behaves (background job, polling via host.runs.get). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but for a unique export tool this is sufficient guidance.

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