Export documents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is modified.' It also discloses that the tool creates the export, waits for completion, returns the file, truncates very large exports with an explicit note, and that binary formats may not display inline. This is rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description contributes meaningful information. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral notes and output-type distinctions. It is concise enough to read quickly while covering all important nuances.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and a complex format-dependent return behavior, the description covers the key operational aspects: no side effects, waiting/truncation behavior, and inline-display limitations. Schema handles the remaining parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the format parameter behaves (textual vs binary output, truncation behavior, and that a narrower date range returns the whole export). This extra semantic context justifies a 4.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Exports documents in a date range to a downloadable file'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like billingo_download_document by emphasizing date-range export and multiple accounting formats. The explicit format examples further anchor the purpose.

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 clear scenarios: use for date-range exports in Billingo-supported formats, with guidance on textual vs binary outputs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as billingo_download_document or say when not to use them, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing.

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