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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: short text exports return inline, while XMind and long exports return a download link valid for 10 minutes to share with the user. That return-mode disclosure is real added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the export action and formats, followed by the return-mode detail. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by explaining inline vs 10-minute link delivery. It stops short of noting the language/format interactions, but the schema covers those, so the definition is nearly complete for a read-only export.

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 80%, so the schema already documents uuid, language, mixOutlines, and mixOriginalLanguage. The description restates the format options without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the enum provides. 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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (a processed Enterprise uuid) and enumerates the four output formats, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It differentiates itself from episode-export siblings by scoping to the Enterprise uuid, but never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 implies when it applies (exporting a processed Enterprise result) and distinguishes inline vs download behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs enterprise_get_result, enterprise_query_results, or the export_episode_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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