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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding genuine domain behavior instead: the result is sorted by wallet then day, and a wallet with no fill on a given day produces no file. Those gap/sort semantics are non-obvious and materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the returned shape before the sort order and the edge case, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the semicolon-joined clauses make it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 characterizes the returned items (wallet, day, rows) plus ordering and the empty-day edge case. Pagination and the required export-order id are left to the schema, which is acceptable, but a note on default result size would round it out.

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 all four parameters (id, limit, offset, wallet) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description mentions 'wallet' as both a row field and implicitly a filter dimension but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description states the resource returned (the daily files an export order grants) with its tuple shape (wallet, day, rows), so an agent can identify this as the listing tool for an export order's files. It implicitly contrasts with export_file ('Read one with export_file'), though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' to name the operation.

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?

It routes the agent to export_file for reading a single file's content, which implies this tool is for enumerating them. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over exports or export_options, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an export order must already exist) are stated.

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