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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: redistribution requires a commercial license and access is paid via x402 USDC or credits with an X-API-KEY. It does not describe output size or rate limits, but the added licensing/payment detail is substantial.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core output is front-loaded, followed by the licensing and payment conditions.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: the result is one JSON document containing the entire corpus, and access has commercial-license and payment requirements. It could say more about expected document size or error behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly does not spend space explaining inputs, and no parameter meaning is missing.

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 states the scope precisely: 'Entire corpus as one JSON document.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search or get_peptide because it returns the full corpus in bulk. The implicit operation is clear from the name and scope, though it never explicitly uses 'export' as a verb.

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 full-corpus scope implies when the tool is appropriate versus individual getters/search, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It also mentions licensing and payment prerequisites, which is useful context but not alternative routing.

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