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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds a trait the annotations cannot express — 'Free' — telling the agent this is a zero-cost metadata lookup rather than a billable quote, which is genuinely useful for cost-sensitive planning.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the follow-on chain. Telegraphic but every clause earns its place; no padding.

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 output schema, the description does the work by enumerating the return payload (input requirements, options, columns, limits, base pricing) and the sequencing. Only minor gaps remain around how to obtain a valid export_type and whether pricing is currency-specific.

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 coverage is 0% for the single export_type parameter, so the description must carry the burden. 'selected from the catalog' usefully implies the value must come from list_export_tools, but it gives no format, case, or valid-value guidance beyond that.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get input requirements, options, columns, limits and base pricing') and scopes it to an export_type drawn from the catalog, which separates it from download/job-listing siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces the catalog (list_export_tools), so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 prescribes the workflow directly: pick an export_type from the catalog, 'Next detect the target, then quote_export_jobs.' Both downstream tools are named with their ordering, so the agent knows exactly what to call next and why.

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