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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it enumerates ZIP contents (data CSVs/JSONs, files/, manifest.json), states signing secrets and token hashes are excluded, discloses link expiry (60 min, 5 downloads), the share-the-link risk, the 10 MB inline ceiling, and the data-only fallback. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Front-loads what the tool produces (a ZIP with data/files/manifest), then layers delivery, expiry, and size caveats in a tight sequence. Despite being dense, each clause adds operational value with no 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 complex, owner-gated, potentially large export with no annotations, the description covers contents, exclusions, delivery modes, expiry, sharing caveats, and size limits. With an output schema present, it correctly does not spend effort re-explaining return values.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains delivery behavior (download_url vs zip_base64), the include_files=false data-only case, and the shop scope. link_minutes is only implicitly referenced via 'works for 60 minutes,' leaving the custom duration less explicit, keeping it just shy of 5.

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) and resource (everything the shop holds) as a single ZIP, and clarifies it is owner-only and full-shop scope. It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from books_export or customers_privacyExport, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling export tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 through scenarios rather than stated: 'Large shops: pass include_files false for data only' and the delivery choice frame how to use it, but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs books_export/payroll_exportCsv' guidance or stated exclusions beyond the data-format options.

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