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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses data deletion 30 days after first export, refers to agentDataExpiresAt for checking, excludes AI insight reports, requires sessionToken from verify_login_signature, and describes the output format. This is unusually transparent for a tool with no structured annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: legacy status and alternatives are front-loaded, the core behavior is stated clearly, output format is summarized, availability and deletion policies are noted, and the auth requirement is explicit. It is information-dense but not padded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the CSV structure, the availability window, the deletion policy, the auth requirement, and how this tool relates to alternatives. There is no essential operational detail missing for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both campaignId and sessionToken already described. The description adds no significant new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce the sessionToken provenance. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Exports raw response data for a completed campaign as CSV text.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign_results by noting that tool is the key-flow equivalent returning JSON with the AI report. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: it is the LEGACY wallet flow, new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign, and get_campaign_results is the equivalent for the key flow. It also states the availability condition ('Only available after campaign expiry') and the required sessionToken, making it easy for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.

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