export_offer

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses that the call creates a metered asynchronous job, that delivery state may be retained, and that the result is neither publication nor certification. Metering and async-job behavior are exactly the cost/side-effect facts an agent cannot get from the hints, and they are consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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 verb and exportable artifacts are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (parts retrieval, non-publication, metered async job, state retention). Some phrasing is dense and legalistic ('explicitly incomplete response without inference'), but there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that oversized results are split into a resumable manifest fetched via get_export_part, which tells the agent what to expect back. It does not state what a small/complete export returns (inline payload vs. job handle/status), leaving a minor gap about the immediate response shape.

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%, and the schema itself already explains the format enum, the request_id retry/reuse rule, and the session_id identity requirement. The description adds only indirect meaning (large responses produce a manifest split into parts), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('Export') and enumerates the exportable artifacts: saved offer, proposed plan, or explicitly incomplete response. It also names the sibling get_export_part for the split-retrieval path, so the agent can distinguish it from a part-fetch. The purpose is clear, though the phrase 'without inference' is jargon that slightly muddies the statement.

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 routes large responses to the resumable manifest and directs the agent to get_export_part, which is real alternative-selection guidance. It also draws a boundary constraint ('does not revise seller terms'), but it gives no guidance on when to prefer export_offer over get_result, get_status, or assess_offer_readiness.

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