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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by scoping results to the current user and filtering to queued or running jobs, which is not captured by the annotations or input schema. It does not mention pagination or response details, but for a read-only list this is a minor gap.

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 description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds only the necessary status and scope qualifiers. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list operation with one optional, fully documented parameter and safety annotations already provided, the description and schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the return concept is clear from the name and description.

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%, and the team_id parameter is already thoroughly documented, including API key team pinning, omission behavior, and OAuth usage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Clarity export jobs'), and a clear scope ('for the current user'), while defining 'active' as 'queued or running'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like startClarityExport and getClarityExport.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you want to enumerate a user's active export jobs rather than starting a new export or fetching a single export. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope and status qualifier make the intended usage evident.

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