export_audit_trail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by emphasizing a 'complete, tamper-evident record' and revealing that exported data includes 'memory context (similar trades, beliefs)', which is valuable for understanding what the output entails.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise elaboration on the record's content and integrity. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It explains what is exported, why (audit/compliance), and critical characteristics (tamper-evident, includes memory context). The optional parameters are fully specified in the schema, so no gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already well-documented with types, defaults, and examples. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 Trading Decision Records' for 'audit and compliance review', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_audit_hash and verify_audit_chain, which focus on verification rather than export.

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 provides clear context ('for audit and compliance review') indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like verify_audit_hash are not referenced, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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