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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — deterministic key ordering, exclusion of environment-specific data (no ids, no eval counters), and CLI-format compatibility. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only export those are marginal, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 action and the bundle shape in the first sentence, then spends the remaining sentences on portability guarantees and the sibling alternative. The field enumeration is dense but each clause carries decision-relevant information; only minor trimming is possible.

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 it does, specifying the envelope ({version, flags}), ordering, and per-entry fields, plus what is deliberately omitted. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the single `app` parameter is fully documented in-schema (including the 'omit to use current app' fallback). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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) and resource (feature flags) plus the exact artifact produced — a portable 'flags as code' bundle. It distinguishes itself from both import_feature_flags (the counterpart) and list_feature_flags (the id-preserving reader), so an agent can pick it without opening another 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Use list_feature_flags instead when you just want to read the current setup, since that keeps the ids.' It also frames import_feature_flags as the round-trip partner, giving the agent a clear when/when-not boundary.

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