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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the shape and ordering of the payload (outline order + generated TOC) in a portable JSON format, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the output format defined first and the disambiguation to the sibling placed at the end. 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 does the necessary work of describing the returned object's contents and ordering. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the result is returned inline as JSON or as a downloadable artifact and any size constraints, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 rootKey parameter is already documented as 'the node_key of the bundle root to export.' The description adds no format or syntax detail for the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (Export), resource (a bundle), and the concrete output (an OKF v0.1 object, a portable JSON format containing memories in outline order plus a generated table of contents). It also names the sibling it is not (muninn_render_bundle), so an agent can separate it from the render path without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For a readable document, use muninn_render_bundle,' which gives a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not spell out exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the bundle must exist or be non-empty), so it stops just short of the top band.

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