get_parameters_for_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect: default false 'mints a new token on every call,' and explains the reuse condition requiring same key material type/algorithm with at least 7 days of validity. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not fully describe the return value or failure modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the critical sequencing rule, and the Args list is compact and informative. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers preconditions, parameter choices, default behavior, and reuse guidance. It only lightly implies the return value (the export parameters/signing certificate) and does not describe the exact output shape expected by export_key, but the tool name and context make it reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents all three parameters with concrete accepted values for key_material_type and signing_key_algorithm, and explains the default behavior and intended usage of reuse_last_generated_token in detail. This goes well beyond the bare type/title info in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as the prerequisite step for export_key when using TR-34, specifying that it provides APC's signing certificate needed for constructing an export payload. This differentiates it from the related export_key and get_parameters_for_import siblings by stating its exact role in the export flow.

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 gives explicit context on when to call the tool ('before export_key when using TR-34') and provides conditional guidance for setting reuse_last_generated_token to true when retrying or building multi-step payloads. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name direct alternatives, so it falls just short of full usage coverage.

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