fetch_export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the key workflow dependency and that the tool downloads a completed export. However, it does not mention potential local file overwriting, authentication needs, blocking behavior, or error cases, which are relevant for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Download a completed export') and then specifying the critical precondition. Every clause earns its place and the sentence structure is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two well-described parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the full async workflow context. It only misses minor safety details such as overwrite behavior, which are not essential for basic invocation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including the same guidance about the download URL being returned by export_genotypes and requiring completion. The tool description reinforces this but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Download a completed export') and precisely identifies the source of the download URL and the required completion condition. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like export_genotypes (which initiates the export) and get_export_progress (which reports status).

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 description gives an explicit temporal condition: use this tool only after export_genotypes(..., wait=False) returns a URL and get_export_progress reports completion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use before completion,' but the sequencing is clear enough for correct selection.

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