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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully enumerates what the record contains (status, URLs, settings, upscale/HDR state, conditional IP analysis), which is the main behavioral signal. It says nothing about auth requirements, error/not-found behavior, or whether the IP analysis is costly to fetch, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the resource and its distinguishing scope ('single export record for an edit') lead, and the returned-field list follows. Nothing needs trimming.

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 and no annotations, the description usefully previews the return contents, which is the right compensation. It is still short of complete for a lookups tool lacking any permissions, error, or conditional-fetch guidance.

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 three required identifiers are each documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline 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 (Get) and resource (a single export record) scoped to an edit, and enumerates the fields returned (status, URLs, settings, upscale/HDR state, IP analysis). This implicitly distinguishes it from list_exports, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the three required IDs (workspaceId/editId/exportId) and the 'single record' framing, so an agent can infer it is the by-ID retrieval path. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_exports, analyze_export_ip, or export_edit, which are closely related siblings.

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