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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: every export includes a provenance header with source URLs and mirror time, and reports rule cost. This informs the agent about the output's structure and guarantees without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists the formats; the second adds behavioral guarantees. It avoids repeating schema details and earns every piece of text.

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?

For a read-only export tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: output formats, provenance header, mirror time, and rule cost. It doesn't explain every nuance (e.g., what 'rule cost' means), but the annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameter defaults, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond illustrating the available output formats, which the schema enum already lists. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's full coverage.

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 states the tool's function: transforming a set of operators into a paste-ready configuration across multiple named formats. The title reinforces the allow/deny use case. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (lookup, stats, verification) by being the only export/formatting tool.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (whenever a paste-ready allowlist/denylist is needed in a specific format), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, the routing guidance is adequate but implicit rather than explicit.

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