export_dda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail beyond the structured fields: the payload is returned base64-encoded, which tells the agent to expect an encoded blob rather than plain text.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format list and encoding detail are packed into one clause without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-structure documentation is unnecessary, and the base64 note covers the one surprising aspect of the response. For a two-parameter, enum-driven export tool this is nearly complete, with only record_id provenance left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it enumerates the six valid output_format values, which compensates partially. However, record_id is left undefined (no hint about identifier format or provenance from list_dda/get_dda).

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?

States a specific verb ("Exporta") and resource ("una DdA") plus the full set of output formats, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings like get_dda. The sibling set is not referenced by name, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 on when to choose export_dda over get_dda or list_dda, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the DdA must exist or be finalized). The agent must infer the use case purely from the verb.

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