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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive status, so the bar is lower; the description still adds valuable semantics — progress scale (100 = complete) and that a signed download url only appears when complete. It does not cover pagination or the default window implied by 'recent'.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its return values, followed by the optional filter and endpoint. Nothing is wasted.

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 covers return shape (status, progress, download url), which is exactly what an agent needs here. The only gap is that 'recent' is undefined and no pagination/limit behavior is described.

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% and the single parameter's description already states it is 'the id returned by beaconcrm_trigger_export', which the tool description essentially repeats. No additional syntax or format meaning is added, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List recent export jobs') with the returned fields enumerated, and it is clearly distinguished from the sibling beaconcrm_trigger_export, which it names explicitly.

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?

Implies the polling workflow: it tells the agent to pass entity_export_id to check a job started by beaconcrm_trigger_export, giving a clear context of use. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternatives beyond that single cross-reference.

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