superchat_get_conversation_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it explains the asynchronous nature, that it returns only a URL, and explicitly excludes file fetching/parsing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition follows, and the exclusion is clearly stated. Every sentence earns its 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (a download link). It doesn't specify the exact response structure (e.g., whether status is included), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of other guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptive text (e.g., 'Export job ID returned by create_conversation_export.'). The description itself does not add further parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents them, a baseline score 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's function: 'Check the status of an asynchronous conversation export job and retrieve its download link.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair (check status, retrieve link) and distinguishes itself from sibling get tools by focusing on export jobs. It is not a tautology and adds meaning beyond the name.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Use after create_conversation_export;' and clarifies what it does not do: 'returns the URL but does not fetch or parse the file.' This gives clear context and prevents misuse, even though it doesn't name alternative tools, the workflow is unambiguous.

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