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

Annotations carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that — an export is non-mutating, so no contradiction. The description adds a modest behavioral note ('Returns the raw data'), but does not expand on what 'raw' means or disclose any other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded ('Export simulation results as JSON or CSV'). The closing clause 'Returns the raw data' is somewhat redundant with the export purpose and adds marginal value, keeping this from a 5.

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 (2 params, 1 enum, readOnly annotation, full schema coverage), and the description covers the basics. However, it leaves gaps: it does not explain the meaning of 'raw data', clarify expectations between the two export formats, or describe success/error behavior. Adequate but with clear omissions.

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%, and both parameters already carry descriptions ('Export format', 'Simulation ID') plus an enum for format. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Export') and a specific resource ('simulation results'), which is clear enough to orient an agent. It distinguishes itself from the two sibling export tools (lexq_replay_export, lexq_facts_export) by naming the resource type, though it does not explicitly spell out that differentiation.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is not told when to reach for this export versus lexq_replay_export or lexq_facts_export, nor any conditions under which it should not be called.

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