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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: archived contacts and companies are excluded, output caps at 500 rows per call, and you paginate via next_offset. It does not explain CSV header layout or how custom-field keys are rendered as columns, which keeps it below a 5.

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 dense sentence leads with the resource and format, then layers filters, exclusions, and pagination. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (CSV text, one row each, tags/custom fields as columns) plus row limits and continuation. The remaining unknowns, such as column ordering and sort defaults, are minor for an export tool.

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 57%, and the description echoes tag/segment/filters and references next_offset for pagination, which the schema's limit/offset parameters leave undescribed. However, sort and limit are not touched, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (export) and resource (contacts, companies, or deals) and names the output format (CSV text with one row per record, tags/custom fields as columns). This clearly separates it from the crm_find_* siblings, which return records for reading rather than a CSV dump.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ("for a spreadsheet or for the owner") and ties filtering behavior to the same filters/tag/segment as the find tools. It implies rather than states the choice between exporting and using crm_find_contacts/crm_find_companies, so it stops short of an explicit when-not rule.

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