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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description needs less safety disclosure. It adds minimal behavioral context about the output format and recipient but does not contradict annotations. No mention of side effects or return behavior, but annotations cover the critical operational safety.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the verb, resource, and output format. No extra words or redundant details are present.

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?

Given the low complexity and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that with no output schema, it doesn't clarify what the returned bundle looks like or how it is delivered to the caller, though the name 'OKF bundle' gives a basic indication.

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 100% with both parameters (`handoverId` and `revisionId`) having descriptions, including the default behavior for `revisionId`. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool exports a handover revision as an Open Knowledge Format bundle, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling `handover.export`, so it misses the higher distinction bar.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `handover.export` or `export_okf`. The description only indicates the action and recipient, lacking any contextual comparison or exclusion.

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