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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: hard caps of 1000 rows / 2 MB, the returned fields (filename, csv), and CSV-formula neutralization for spreadsheet safety. It does not say what happens when the caps are exceeded (truncation vs. error), which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and output format, then limits, return shape and safety behavior. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the size caps. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, omitting all parameter meaning leaves the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. It mentions no parameter by name — id, q, tag, sort, source, status, direction are all left unexplained, with only an oblique reference to 'filtered results'. An agent must guess at filter and sort semantics.

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: exporting filtered results as CSV. The tool's identity as a collection-rows export is inferable from the name plus 'résultats filtrés', and it is distinguishable from export_contacts and export_form_responses by resource. It never explicitly says 'collection rows' in the body text, though, leaving the resource slightly implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives such as list_collection_rows or export_contacts. The phrase 'résultats filtrés' hints that the same filters as the list tool apply, but the agent gets no explicit rule for choosing export over listing.

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