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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a crucial behavioral nuance: 'Does not write files by itself', indicating the agent must handle persistence. This goes beyond the annotation hints and prevents a potential misuse.

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-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero redundant content. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat.

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 simple export tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the target resource, the use cases, and the non-persistence behavior, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter includeConfig with a clear description and default, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 explicitly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'current WorkPaper JSON document', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling cell-level operations. The addition of 'for persistence, review, or handoff' further clarifies the tool's role.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (obtaining a serialized snapshot for persistence, review, or handoff) and implies it is for the current document. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools are so obviously distinct that confusion is unlikely.

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