edf_export_results

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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, closed-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the write is sandboxed to 'the EDF data exports folder' and the return value is a local absolute path. It stops short of stating overwrite/repeat-call behavior, which matters given 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and return value front-loaded before the filter and sandbox details. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the return value (absolute path) and covers the write side effect and its scope. The main gap is the required id parameter and any caveat about repeated exports, but for a 3-parameter tool this is largely sufficient.

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 partially does: 'status filter, e.g. candidate_available' explains the status parameter and 'CSV or JSON' maps to format. The required id parameter is only loosely implied by 'a saved job', leaving its semantics (job identifier) undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Export a saved job to local CSV or JSON') plus the return value ('absolute path'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like edf_get_job or edf_list_jobs, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over edf_get_job or edf_list_jobs, nor any prerequisite such as the job needing to be finished before export. The only usage hint is that status is an optional filter with an example value, which is thin guidance.

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