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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the status lifecycle values (NEW, SCHEDULED, PROCESSING, SUCCESS, SKIPPED, ERROR), that error details are surfaced, and that a pre-signed ZIP URL appears only when done — details not derivable from annotations.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: the return content and status values lead, with the GET endpoint appended for reference. Slightly dense in a single sentence, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well by enumerating status values, error details, and the conditional download URL. A poll-cadence or timeout note would round it out, but nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description references export_id contextually but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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+resource: retrieves status of an export started with request_export, enumerating the per-file statuses and the download URL returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling request_export by being the status-poll counterpart.

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?

Description ties usage to 'an export started with request_export', making the when-to-use obvious: after kicking off an export, poll this. It doesn't state exclusions or an explicit alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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