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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: only sanctioned live memories travel, proposals/archived memories/findings are excluded, findings remain in the project and the answer reports their count, and no people-related data is exported. It also explains that the pack name is the trust signal for the recipient.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the filtering rules are grouped logically. However, the point about people-related data not traveling is stated twice ('Nothing about people travels...' and 'The pack is what the team decided, never who was there'), making the text slightly more redundant than necessary.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description still explains what the result is (a portable document), what it contains, what is filtered out, and what the answer reports (how many findings stayed). Together with the fully described input schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters. The description's only parameter-specific comment—'Give it a name that says what it is for'—largely duplicates the schema's `name` description, so it adds no significant new semantic value beyond baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export what this project has DECIDED as a portable memory pack.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope by defining what counts as a norm (sanctioned, live memories) and what does not, and contrasts with the sibling arroway_import by mentioning import as a downstream use case.

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 gives clear use context: hand it to another team, keep it as a file, or import it into another project. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended scenarios are concrete and recognizable.

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