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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it adds two facts: the export is 'safe' and lasts 'seven-day'. However, 'safe' is undefined, and it does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it returns a download ID or URL, whether it overwrites previous exports, or whether special permissions are required. Transparency is partial.

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 a single sentence with no filler; every word contributes signal: create, safe, seven-day, contact, CSV, export. Key qualifiers are front-loaded and the text is easy to parse.

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 only one parameter, this is an export-creation workflow with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the agent receives after calling it, how the seven-day window affects follow-up, or how the export is later retrieved. Sibling tools like data_export_download indicate a larger workflow that the description leaves unexplained.

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% and organization_id is already described as 'Active organization ID'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but for a single obvious parameter the schema carries the burden. A baseline 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 names a specific action — create a contact CSV export — and clearly scopes it to contacts. It is distinct enough at a glance from generic exports, though 'seven-day' is ambiguous and no sibling tool is named to sharpen differentiation.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with related tools such as commsharbor_data_export_create, contact imports, or contact retrieval tools. The only implied context is 'use when a contact CSV export is needed', which is effectively circular.

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