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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured fields: the output is CSV. It says nothing about row limits, size caps, or what the CSV contains, which matters for a bulk export.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, which is efficient. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight editing; the sentence could carry one more clause about filtering or limits at almost no length cost.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the CSV's contents or of export scope. For a data-extraction tool this leaves the agent guessing about the very inputs it must supply; the description is also written in French while the rest of the tool surface is English, a minor consistency friction.

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 four parameters (q, filter, status, segmentId), so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails. 'Filtrés' signals only that these parameters filter the set, with no indication of how q differs from filter, what values status accepts, or what segmentId refers to.

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 names a specific verb ('Exporter'), resource ('les contacts') and output format ('au format CSV'), plus a scope qualifier ('filtrés'). It is immediately clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as export_collection_rows, export_form_responses, bulk_contacts, or import_contacts.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus bulk_contacts or the other export_* tools, and no prerequisites. The word 'filtrés' hints that filtering parameters drive the export, but nothing tells the agent whether an unfiltered call exports everything or errors out.

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