exports_download

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the crucial trait that exports are single-use and auto-deleted after download, warning the agent not to retry or double-fetch. It doesn't say what error or return shape appears when the file is expired or already consumed, and this 'consumed on read' behavior sits in some tension with the idempotentHint=true annotation, though it is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loads the action and the single-use warning, then the sourcing of the filename. The trailing list of common formats is mildly redundant but helps the agent sanity-check the argument, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says how the file is returned (bytes, base64, signed URL) or what a missing/expired export yields. For a one-parameter download tool this is the main remaining hole; the behavioral warning and filename sourcing cover the rest.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as coming from the export generation endpoint. The description reinforces this with format examples (invoices-export-YYYY-MM.zip) but adds no syntax, path, or validation rules the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Download a generated export file (ZIP archive)') plus the clarifying 'generated', which separates it from the many export-generation siblings such as invoices_export_zip or clients_export_csv. An agent can tell which side of the generate/download pair this is.

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 explains where the filename comes from ('typically provided by the endpoint that generated the export (e.g. POST /api/v1/invoices/export)'), which implicitly routes the agent to a generation tool first. It never states an explicit exclusion or what to do if no filename is available, so it stops short of a 5.

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