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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, and the description adds a genuinely behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the default result set is external (customer-facing) articles, not internal ones. That default matters for interpreting the output. It stops short of covering pagination, size limits, or return shape.

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 with the primary behavior (export, default = external) front-loaded. The trailing HappyFox API endpoint paths are arguably extra detail, but they identify the underlying resource and are harmless.

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 read-only export with a single fully-documented boolean and no output schema, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. It does not mention pagination or result volume, a minor gap for a list/export endpoint.

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 sole parameter is already described as 'true = internal articles; false/omitted = external'. The description echoes this same true/false semantics plus the default, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (export) and resource (knowledge-base articles), and disambiguates the two modes it returns: external/customer-facing by default vs internal/agent-only. There are no KB-related siblings to confuse it with, so sibling differentiation is moot, but the modal distinction is clearly drawn.

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?

It tells the agent the default (external articles) and that internal is opt-in, which is useful. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. KB module enabled, permissions), leaving usage largely implied.

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