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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that removed nodes are included with a removedAt marker, that the result is large, and that it should be written to a file rather than summarised. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or whether the export is a snapshot at call time, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: payload contents, use cases, then the size warning plus the anti-pattern. The most decision-relevant facts (what it returns, when not to call it) are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter bulk-export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: the full shape of the returned document, that it is large, and how to handle it. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Ground slug."), so the schema already does the work. The description implies the slug scopes the whole export but adds no format, example, or resolution detail beyond that — 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?

"Returns everything in a ground as one JSON document" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the payload (project, seasons, nodes, edges, apis, bugs, wiki pages). It explicitly contrasts with get_graph, so an agent can separate it from the many list_*/get_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the concrete use cases (backups, migrating off Umtri, data-portability questions) and states an explicit exclusion: "do not call it for ordinary reads (use get_graph)". Both the when and the when-not, plus the named alternative, are present.

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