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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates an artifact with expiry and row count, and that it can be large enough to require start_task. It does not mention whether the CSV is stored temporarily, how long the expiry is, or whether it mutates state, but the artifact/expiry disclosure is meaningful beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and deliverable, then the artifact details and the start_task routing. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 has 14 optional parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the deliverable, filters, artifact metadata, and the large-export fallback. The only gap is not specifying the expiry duration or whether the CSV is temporary, but that is minor given the output schema exists.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds the concept of 'authorized project' and 'attachment links', which maps to project_id/project_ids and the CSV contents, but it does not add syntax or format details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Create'), a concrete deliverable ('downloadable CSV'), and the full scope of filtering ('authorized project, date, author, asset, and status filters'), including attachment links and artifact metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_comments or feedback_report, which are not about creating a CSV export.

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 explicitly says to use start_task for large exports, which is a clear alternative-routing instruction. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to feedback_report, but the export-specific language and the start_task pointer provide solid usage context.

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