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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses the return payload (new export id with status in_progress), the polling contract, and reinforces non-idempotency with 'Each call starts another job.'

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?

Four dense sentences, zero filler, and the WRITE marker plus verb are front-loaded ahead of the return/polling details. Every sentence carries distinct operational information.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return shape (id + status), the full polling loop, and the non-idempotent side effect. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and follow through correctly.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the hint that the template id appears in the Beacon URL. The description only alludes to the parameter indirectly ('existing export template'), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'start an export job from an existing export template,' with the wire endpoint POST /entity_export/trigger. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling beaconcrm_list_exports, which it names as the polling counterpart rather than a competing option.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context: start the job here, then poll beaconcrm_list_exports with the returned id until progress is 100 and a download url appears. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'existing export template (created in Beacon),' so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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