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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructive behavior; description adds meaningful context: it is a trigger operation, it waits until completion to return a URL, and it requires a preconfigured project. It does not explicitly detail polling/timeout behavior, but the schema parameter and 'when complete' phrase cover the essential trait.

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 sentences with no wasted words: action/result, critical prerequisite with a creation fallback, and the ad-hoc alternative. The prerequisite warning is placed immediately after the main action where it matters.

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 tool with no output schema, the description states the return value and key precondition, and routes to the correct sibling. The only notable gap is lack of detail about the polling behavior or failure outcome, but pollTimeoutSeconds in schema plus 'when complete' make the tool callable.

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 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters. The description only reinforces definitionGroupId's requirement ('must already exist') without adding new semantic detail about legalEntity, reExecute, packageName, or pollTimeoutSeconds, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with the concrete action ('Trigger a bulk export through the Data Management package REST API') and names the deliverable ('return the download URL when complete'). It further differentiates from siblings by pointing to odata_export_entity for ad-hoc exports and dmf_create_data_project for creating the prerequisite project.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool applies (bulk export through an existing DMF project) and gives two routing rules: create the missing project with dmf_create_data_project, or use odata_export_entity for ad-hoc exports. This is clearer than most sibling descriptions.

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