export_concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool exports and returns the concept in the requested format or an error message, which is useful. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or read-only status, but export inherently implies a non-destructive operation.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the purpose, parameters, and return behavior. It lacks usage comparisons with siblings, but that is already captured in the usage guideline dimension.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining iri as 'The concept IRI or identifier' and enumerating the allowed format values ('markdown', 'jsonld', 'owl_xml'). This adds meaningful value beyond the bare 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 states the tool exports a FOLIO concept in a specific format, with an explicit list of supported formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_concept, which likely returns concept data without format conversion.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need a concept in markdown, JSON-LD, or OWL/XML. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_concept or query_concepts, nor does it 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.