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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a strict rate limit (1 export per 24 hours), the account-access requirement, and the fact that this tool is not reachable via start_login. It does not say how the export is delivered, but the operational constraints are unusually explicit for a zero-parameter tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, rate limit second, access flow third. Every sentence earns its place, and the authentication warning is concrete and actionable.

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 no-parameter tool in a huge sibling set, it covers the main invoke-blocking factors: what is exported, the legal scope, the rate cap, and the authentication prerequisite with a retry instruction. The only open question is the response/delivery format, but the description gives enough for safe selection and first 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description reinforces this by focusing entirely on action and access prerequisites rather than arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export all account data', and ties it to GDPR Article 20. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like export_authorizations and from list_* retrieval tools.

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 explicit preconditions: a Proof account is required, and the client must be authenticated before calling, with a concrete remediation path: 'Authenticate this client ... then call this tool again'. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives for scoped data exports.

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