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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: short exports return inline while long ones return a download link valid for 10 minutes. It does not, however, state any auth or quota requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and content scope are front-loaded, with the return-shape caveat following in a clear second sentence.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by explaining the inline-vs-download-link behavior and the 10-minute expiry. For a read-only export tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the dialect option (Obsidian/Logseq formatting) and says nothing about language, mixOutlines, or mixWithOriginLanguage, adding little beyond the schema.

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 (transcribed episode as a Markdown note), then enumerates exactly what is bundled: summary, outline and transcript. This clearly separates it from sibling format/resource tools like export_episode_srt and export_clips_markdown without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 context ("to share with the user") and notes the Obsidian/Logseq formatting option, which hints at when this is the right export. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over export_episode_srt, export_clips_markdown, or get_episode_transcript, and offers no exclusions.

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