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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: the registry's kept copy is deleted after a single return, making the operation irreversible. It also notes private_key_jwk is used for this call only. It doesn't cover permission requirements, error behavior if already exported, or what the returned copy contains.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its consequence, with no filler. The spec reference and parameter notes both earn their place.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the irreversible behavior and the two required inputs. Missing only the meaning of eid and the shape of the returned key copy, minor relative to what is covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it explains confirm must be true (stronger than the schema, which doesn't even mark it required) and that private_key_jwk is used only for this call. The eid parameter goes unexplained, leaving one of three undocumented.

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 and resource (export your key from registry custody) plus the defining scope: the registry returns its kept copy once and then deletes it. That one-time-return-plus-deletion contract distinguishes it from siblings like openentity_read or openentity_withdraw without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives prerequisites (confirm=true, private_key_jwk required) but never says when to choose this over alternatives such as openentity_withdraw or openentity_read, nor what happens if the key was already exported. Usage is implied by the prerequisites rather than explicitly routed.

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