export_document_markdown

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

The annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds minimal context (export as Markdown) but does not contradict annotations. It does not explain output format details or any limitations, but the annotations cover safety.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it underspecifies the tool. It earns points for brevity but lacks necessary detail.

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 has 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 should explain parameters, but it only mentions 'one fiscal document', leaving undocumented parameters like direction, includeLineItems, includeNotifications, includeRawRefs, and confirm_read completely unexplained. The agent cannot understand their purpose or valid values.

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 one fiscal document as generic Markdown, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_counterparty_markdown' or 'export_period_markdown', which also export Markdown for different entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or context. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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