eds_da_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the recursive fetch, that it returns all sources together, and the required token. It implies a read-only operation with the phrase 'clone read', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error/truncation behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('Bulk-export'), and each sentence adds essential information: the recursive behavior and the comparison to per-page gets. No fluff or repetition.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (recursive export, path, return of sources, token requirement) and provides usage context. It could elaborate on what 'sources' means or potential errors, but given the simplicity and helper schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema: it rephrases the path as 'under a path' but does not explain maxFiles or output format beyond what the schema already provides. It does not hurt, but does not significantly elevate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Bulk-export'), the resource ('Document Authoring subtree'), and behavior ('recursively fetch every document under a path and return all their sources together'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool eds_da_get_source by noting this is for many pages at once vs. one get per page.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the efficient alternative for operating on many pages at once, directly comparing it to 'one get per page' and naming the requirement of EDS_DA_TOKEN. This gives clear when-to-use context and a contrast with the alternative.

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