export_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the content of the response (freshness signals), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it doesn't explain what threshold triggers 'stale' or how the warning is computed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the payload front-loaded after the freshness framing. No filler, though the colon-list style leaves terms like 'stale warning' undefined.

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 parameters and a full annotation set, the main gap is output detail: no output schema exists, and the description only gestures at the returned fields without defining 'stale' or the warning semantics. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting results.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No enum or format concerns apply.

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?

States concretely what it reports: freshness metadata consisting of newest round, newest export file, and a stale warning. The verb is implied ('reports/shows') but the resource and payload are specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling throw_export_status, which likely covers similar freshness ground.

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 call this versus list_rounds, list_throws, or throw_export_status. The agent must infer that this is a freshness/data-health check. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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