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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: exports retain files for 30 days and then display as expired, which tells an agent how to interpret a stale result. It omits pagination/result-count behavior and what an empty list looks like.

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 compact sentences with no padding; the return-field enumeration comes first and the retention caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the ordering, and it covers the retention/expiry edge case. It is slightly thin on result-set size or pagination for a tool that could return many exports, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that projectId comes from list_projects or create_project. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond that, 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?

The description names the resource (a project's exports), states the ordering (latest first), and enumerates the fields returned (type, format, size, status, file URL once completed). That lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling export_project, which initiates exports rather than listing them. It stops short of an explicit verb or an explicit sibling callout, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'status' and 'URL once completed' hints this is where you check on an export after requesting one, but the description never says to call export_project first or under what conditions to use this versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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