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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: live wallets require paid access, the audit format ties figures to transaction hashes and a data fingerprint, and large files are truncated with a download link. This is meaningful beyond the annotations but doesn't explain failure modes or token expiry.

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 dense sentences that front-load the format catalogue and follow with the access constraint and truncation behavior. No filler, though the audit parenthetical is packed and slightly hard to parse.

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?

Covers the key operational facts an agent needs: what each format yields, that paid access gates live wallets, and that large exports are truncated with a link. Missing only failure/auth-token-expiry detail, which is minor given annotations already handle safety.

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 83%, so the schema already documents address, tax_year, jurisdiction, and sample. The description adds value by clarifying what each format actually produces (e.g. audit = JSON with transaction-hash-tied figures, auditpdf = printable PDF), but says nothing about unlock_token or the format enum's tradeoffs beyond naming them.

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 names five concrete output formats (Koinly CSV, CTC CSV, accountant summary, audit JSON, audit PDF) with the verb implied by the tool name. It distinguishes this export tool from siblings like get_tax_summary and get_ledger_events by describing deliverables rather than raw data, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Only one conditional is given: paid access for live wallets. There is no guidance on when to choose each format, when to use sample=true, or why an agent would pick export_tax_file over get_tax_summary or get_ledger_events. The format tradeoffs are left entirely to the caller.

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