export_subject

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 well: it discloses the side effect (writes one rights:export ledger entry with a manifest hash), the refusal behavior for ambiguous subjects, and the resolution semantics ('resolved exactly as erasure resolves it'). No contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences front-load the legal context and subject scope, then cover side effects and edge case. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, it describes the content of the export (provenance, correction history, tombstones, ledger actions) and the key edge condition. Minor gaps remain around output shape and the semantics of request_id/include_text, but the core invocation context is solid.

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 description clarifies two parameters: subject (a source doc identifier) and allow_ambiguous (relaxes ambiguity refusal). It does not explain request_id or include_text, and schema parameter descriptions cover 0%, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific operation (GDPR Art. 15 subject access export) and a specific resource (everything the store holds about a source doc identifier). The emphasis on exact erasure-resolution, provenance, correction history, and tombstones clearly differentiates it from sibling audit/erasure/export tools like export_audit_trail or erasure_report.

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 gives clear trigger context ('GDPR Art. 15 access') and states the ambiguity-refusal condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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