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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses UTF-8 BOM, Excel-friendly, limit range 1..2000, and return format (CSV text). It doesn't mention authentication needs or side effects, but since export is read-only, this is acceptable.

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 concise: one-line purpose, then bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value—no filler. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given 6 parameters (all explained), no required params, and an output schema (though not shown, description mentions CSV text return), the description is complete for the tool's complexity. Sibling tools suggest this is the only CSV export option, so no missing context.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate fully. It does: each parameter is explained (entity: 'companies' or 'projects', query: free-text, category/region: filters, budget_max: cap for companies, limit: 1..2000 with default 500). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Export' and resource 'search results as CSV text'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools (search_companies, search_projects) by focusing on CSV output. No ambiguity.

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 provides parameter explanations (entity, query, category, region, budget_max, limit) and the overall purpose (export CSV). It implies when to use (need CSV export) but doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., 'if you need filtered browsing, use search_companies instead'). Still, guidance is clear enough.

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