Get Record Exports

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

The annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns URLs and does not download files, which is a useful distinction but not extensive. It provides a small amount of extra context beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifier. It is concise and avoids unnecessary details, though it may be too brief to convey all necessary context. Still, for a simple tool, this structure is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is underspecified. It doesn't explain what the export URLs are for, how the version parameter affects them, or how this tool relates to siblings like get_record_versions. The output schema covers return format, so that is fine, but the semantic context is missing.

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 has zero description coverage for parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions no parameters at all. The names 'identifier' and 'version' give some surface-level meaning, but the description does not clarify how they are used (e.g., what identifier refers to or what version null means). This is a clear gap.

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 verb-resource pair ('Return ... export URLs') and adds a key qualifier ('without downloading files') that distinguishes it from data retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling tool or contrast itself with them, so it relies on the reader to infer its unique role among the listed siblings.

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 phrase 'without downloading files' implies the tool is for when the user needs links rather than the actual data, giving some contextual guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this over alternatives like get_record or get_record_versions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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