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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the concrete output path, the per-source-type conversion semantics (EDF byte-passthrough, HDF5→EDF with events.tsv), the guarantee of no fabricated onsets, and the embedded manifest with sha256 hashes. An agent knows exactly what will be produced and where.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and destination, then the format-specific behavior in two compact paragraphs. Slightly dense with parenthetical detail, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still covers output location, format branching, manifest contents, and zip-size bounding. 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 dataset, kind, and subjects (including the pack-only subject filter and auto-detection). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ("Export a Nimbus dataset as a BIDS-layout zip") plus the output location, which is far more concrete than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling bids.export_execution, leaving the agent to infer the dataset-vs-execution split.

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 explains source-kind routing (continuous vs epoched, auto-detected) which implicitly tells the agent what this tool handles, but it never states when to choose this over bids.export_execution or pipeline.export, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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