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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses that args are redacted, that entries are hash-chained, that verification is offline via sha256(prev_hash + canonical(entry)), and that an account key is required. That is substantive behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is exported; the verification formula is dense but earns its place. No filler, though the parenthesis list is slightly crammed.

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 usefully describes the returned structure (chained entries plus Merkle root) and the verification path. Missing only guidance on how the export is delivered (file vs inline) and any size/rate considerations.

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 both runId and proxyId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a run's hash-chained audit entries') and enumerates the payload contents (prev_hash, hash, redacted args, Merkle root), making it clearly distinct from siblings like agentguard_get_run.

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 names use cases ('for disputes and questionnaires'), which implies when to reach for it, but never states when NOT to use it or contrasts it with agentguard_get_run, which an agent could easily confuse for audit retrieval.

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