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

The description mentions that the export is 'retained for seven days,' which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other important aspects like the format details, whether the export is synchronous or asynchronous, or how to retrieve the output. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it only partially covers behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a brief retention detail. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff.

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?

The tool is fairly simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is almost adequate. However, some context is missing: what to do after the export is created, how to access the file, and the format (CSV) is stated but no link to retrieval tools. Given the simplicity, a 3 seems right; more could be added about retrieval workflow.

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 (organization_id) with a description, reaching 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 states a clear verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('CSV export of the organization's contacts'), which is distinct enough from the sibling tools like commsharbor_contact_import_* or commsharbor_crm_contacts_*. It does not mention any alternative or differentiate explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other export-related tools such as commsharbor_data_export_create or commsharbor_contact_file_get. The description gives a general sense of usage (export contacts as CSV) but lacks exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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