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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to establish safety. Beyond that, it only lists return fields and says nothing about polling behavior, errors, auth, or access constraints; with an output schema present, even the field list is largely duplicated.

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?

It is a single telegraphic fragment with no wasted words, but it lacks a complete sentence structure or front-loaded action verb. The brevity is efficient, though it contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.

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?

The tool is simple and has annotations plus an output schema, but the definition still omits the required export_id's origin and any selection guidance against related export tools. For an agent to invoke it correctly, it needs at least the parameter context that is missing here.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, export_id, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no information about where to obtain the ID or what format it uses.

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 field list identifies the export resource and the kind of data returned (status, progress, counts, hash, URL), but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_exports or export_workspace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_export versus list_exports or export_workspace, nor any prerequisite such as needing an export_id from a prior export request. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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