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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares read-only and free (cost), warns the raw CSV 'can be large' (sizing/pagination), and explains the deliberate omission of scores. It stops short of stating permission requirements or filtering 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?

Three tight sentences: the columns come first, then the deliberate omission rationale, then output/size and cost. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully lists the CSV columns and size caveat, which covers the return side. However, with four undocumented input parameters and no annotation coverage, the input side is left entirely to the schema, which is incomplete.

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 0% across 4 parameters (role, company, search_id, min_relevance), and the description documents none of them — it only implies that the search is identified somehow. No format, filter semantics, or value guidance is added, so the doc fails to compensate for the schema 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 of an SDR search) as CSV, and enumerates the exported columns, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name the nearest sibling (sdr_export_personas_to_audience) to route between them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 line 'deliberately carries no scores or signal reasoning, because this file leaves the platform' implies when this export is appropriate (external sharing) versus internal analytics, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named. Usage must be inferred from the motive clause.

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