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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's 'without changing records or spending credits' is partly redundant — but it usefully extends that to the credit/billing model, which annotations cannot express. The organization-scoping constraint ('only exports belonging to your organization are accessible') is genuinely new behavioral context an agent needs to predict authorization failures.

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 first two sentences ('Get export by ID. Retrieve a single export by its ID.') are near-verbatim restatements of each other and of the annotation title, consuming space without adding information. The remaining two sentences do earn their place, but the opening is padded.

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 simple, annotated, single-parameter read there is nothing critical missing, but the description never says what an export record looks like beyond the field name — status, progress, or a download reference — and no output schema exists to fill that in. An agent calling this cannot anticipate what it will receive.

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% and the single parameter is nested inside a 'path' object with an 'exportId' string — a shape the description does not explain at all. 'By its ID' adds nothing the schema does not already say, and gives no hint about ID format or where an agent obtains one (presumably from dealmachine_get_exports).

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get/Retrieve a single export by its ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool dealmachine_get_exports. It never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from plurality alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need an export ID to call it. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus dealmachine_get_exports to enumerate exports, nor any note about what to do if the ID is unknown.

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