market_export_ai_handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the returned evidence is data, not instructions, and that the handoff is existing and governed. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and target; the second adds an important clarification about the output. The structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the target, constrains it to finalized existing packages, and clarifies output semantics. A little more detail about the output shape or error cases would make it fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by saying the operation targets 'one finalized control package,' implying the control_package_id must refer to a finalized package. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter or its role beyond this indirect reference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and names a precise resource ('existing governed AI-ready handoff for one finalized control package'). It is clear about scope and constraints, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as market_read_result or market_fetch_evidence.

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 'for one finalized control package' and 'existing governed AI-ready handoff' gives clear context: this tool is appropriate only when the package is finalized and the handoff already exists. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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