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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: no result cap, CSV header row, list values joined with '; ', the catalog notice repeated in the last column, and the fact that static download URLs are returned. It stops short of describing payload size or URL lifetime, which would matter for a full-catalog export.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose and format come first, followed by output-shape details. The CSV sentence is dense with three separate facts but each one is operationally relevant, so nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter, zero-required export tool with no output schema, the description covers format, filtering parity, column selection and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around output size and whether repeated exports are bounded, but an agent could invoke this correctly as written.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool semantics by declaring that the filter parameters behave the same as search_catalog and that 'fields' selects columns by catalog field name rather than filtering rows. That distinction is not obvious from the schema alone and prevents a real misuse.

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 and resource ('Export the Signal Lab catalog') plus the output formats (JSON/CSV) and scope (every entry vs. filtered). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_catalog by noting exports are uncapped, so an agent can choose between them without opening schemas.

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?

Effectively tells the agent to use this when the full set or an uncapped filtered set is needed, and points at search_catalog as the shared filter vocabulary. There is no explicit 'do not use this for single-entry lookups, use get_entry' exclusion, so it lands just short of a 5.

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