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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to the added context: 'The returned catalog defines availability' tells the agent the response is authoritative, and 'Free' discloses cost. It stops short of describing the catalog's shape, but with the annotation profile established the remaining gap is minor.

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-loaded with the trigger condition before the long content-type enumeration, which earns its place by helping the agent confirm coverage. Slightly dense, but no wasted sentences.

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 zero-required-param catalog tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the optional parameter guidance, the free-cost note, and the handoff to get_export_tool. Sufficient for an agent to invoke and continue the workflow.

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 0%, but the description compensates: it explains platform is optional and only to be set when known, and enumerates the covered platforms (though it omits 'gmap' from the enum). This adds real meaning beyond the bare $ref enum.

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+resource combination ('list export tools') plus the discovery framing 'Start here...'. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_export_tool, the sibling it routes the agent to as the next step.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to export... data to CSV/XLSX'), how to parameterize ('Set platform when known; select export_type by user intent'), and names the follow-up tool ('then call get_export_tool'). Routing is unambiguous.

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