export_circular_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a markdown summary is generated and optionally written to disk, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only or has any other side effects beyond the file write. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds a conditional detail efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the main function and the optional file writing. It could mention that the AC number must correspond to an existing circular, but the schema covers the parameter format.

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%, with both parameters described in the input schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a printable markdown summary for a specific advisory circular and mentions optional disk writing. It distinguishes from siblings like get_circular_details by specifying the output format and side effect, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fetch_ac_from_faa.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_circular_details or fetch_ac_from_faa. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., AC number must exist) or scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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