Export a decision record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what the export contains (weight/score sensitivity, Monte Carlo, recommendation) and where the text lives ('content' field), which is not derivable from annotations.

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 action and the record contents. The enumeration is long but every item conveys what the export produces; the trailing note about the 'content' field is well placed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description correctly focuses on what the record contains. A small gap remains: no guidance on when to prefer markdown vs json or on the source of decision_id beyond the schema's note.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the format enum and the decision_id source. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (the decision) and enumerates the record's contents. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_matrix or analyze, which retrieve sub-parts rather than a full reviewable record.

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?

The description implies usage ('as a reviewable record' with ADR-style output), but never states when to choose export_decision over list_decisions, get_matrix, or analyze. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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