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

The annotations mark this tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), but the description implies a read-only export by stating it runs the same SQL query as stock_data_query, which is typically a SELECT. This contradicts the annotation. The description does not mention any destructive side effects or file modifications, creating an inconsistency.

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 concise paragraphs: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the relationship to sibling and output features. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 description effectively covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and differentiator. However, it fails to reconcile the destructive annotation with its implied read-only behavior, leaving a minor gap in behavioral completeness. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so the overall context is mostly sufficient.

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 schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (query and title). The description adds minimal extra semantic value, mostly reinforcing that the query is the same as stock_data_query and that the title is for a branded header. With 100% schema coverage, 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 specific verb (Export) and resource (query results to a branded Excel spreadsheet). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling stock_data_query by noting it returns a downloadable Excel file instead of raw data, providing clear 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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: when you want the same SQL query as stock_data_query but in an Excel file ('instead of raw data'). This directly addresses the alternative tool and clarifies the decision boundary.

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