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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful product detail (portable, checksum-verified bundle) and confirms the read-only run behavior, but says nothing about error conditions, bundle size, or where the export lands.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact kinds. The second sentence ('Through Royally: its server marks it read-only, so it runs straight away.') is slightly cryptic in phrasing but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what the export returns (bundle format, download location, or checksum delivery). It gestures at 'portable, checksum-verified bundle' but doesn't say how the bundle is surfaced to the caller, leaving a meaningful gap for an export tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with id, kind, and site_id all described in the schema itself. The description reinforces the artifact types matching the kind enum but adds no information about 'id' as a local post ID or the fixed site_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 (exports) and resource (sandbox artifact) and enumerates the three kinds (custom block, custom widget, PHP snippet), which separates it from the sibling emcp-tools-export-page. It does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, but the resource naming makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage context is only implied via 'suitable for sharing or cloud sync.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as the page-export sibling.

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