payware_data_export_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered and the description correctly does not contradict it. Beyond that, it adds the READY gating condition but still doesn't say what happens when a report is not READY (error vs. pending), whether an export can be repeated safely given idempotentHint=false, or what a successful export returns (URL vs. job handle).

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the precondition second; nothing is redundant or padded. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose remaining metadata lives in the schema and annotations.

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 four-parameter export tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential gating rule and the output format dimension. The remaining gaps (behavior on a non-READY report, how the exported artifact is retrieved) are modest and partly recoverable from sibling names like payware_data_download_export.

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 the schema already documents requestId (UUID), partnerId and privateKey defaults, and the full outputFormat enum, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond reiterating 'specific format', and its parenthetical of only PDF/CSV/Excel/JSON understates the actual enum (which also includes rtf, html, xml, docx, odt, ods), so it adds no clarity and risks mild confusion.

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 gives a specific verb (export) plus resource (report) and adds the key precondition that the report must be in READY status, which distinguishes it from the sibling status/download tools. It falls short of a 5 because it never names the sibling it supersedes (e.g. download_export or get_report_status) and the format list it cites (PDF, CSV, Excel, JSON) does not match the schema's 10-value enum.

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?

There is an explicit precondition ('must be in READY status first'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance and greater than nothing. However, it gives no exclusion or alternative routing: it doesn't say to call get_report_status to reach READY, nor how this differs from download_export or get_export_status, so the agent must infer those relationships.

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