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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds the HTTP route and workspace scope. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, auth requirements, or response details, so the description only modestly extends the annotation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and scope, and each part adds value including the API endpoint. There is no redundant language or 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, scope, and exact endpoint. It could optionally mention pagination or return format, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description's mention of 'workspace' provides scope context rather than parameter semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('data exports'), and defines the scope ('in the workspace'), making the operation unambiguous. It also provides the exact API endpoint, and because sibling tools target different resources (campaigns, segments, messages), this is clearly distinguishable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned; the intended context is implied by the resource name and the sibling list tools. Since there is no dedicated export sibling, exclusions are not strictly necessary, but an agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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