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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what fields are returned (status, format, version index, URLs, export settings), which is helpful, but does not state that it is read-only, whether it paginates, how results are sorted, or any authorization requirements. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the scope ('List prior exports for an edit') and then lists the returned fields. Every part earns its place with no redundancy 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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description successfully conveys the return contents. It is largely complete, though it could mention pagination behavior or how the limit parameter affects results to be fully thorough.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (workspaceId, editId, limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely implies the edit context, which is already captured by the required editId parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (prior exports) scoped to an edit, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear enough to distinguish from general edit operations, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_export or export_edit.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for viewing prior exports, but does not explain when to choose this over get_export (single export details) or export_edit (creating an export), and offers no exclusions or context on typical invocation scenarios.

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