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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond that by noting the return is a short-lived download link and clarifying both query types are supported.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by supported scope, prerequisite sourcing, and return format. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 compensates by describing the return value (short-lived download link). Combined with format options, queryId provenance, and supported query types, an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both queryId and format are already documented in the schema, including the enum and default. The description echoes the queryId source and format options but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (export a saved query's results) and names the output formats (CSV, Excel/.xlsx). It also scopes which query types are supported (raw SQL and query-builder), letting an agent distinguish it from draxlr_export_dashboard without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to source the required queryId (draxlr_list_saved_queries or draxlr_get_query), which is actionable routing. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative for viewing results instead of exporting (e.g., run_saved_query), so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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