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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the private-field policy and its csv exception ('NEVER included in csv at all, whatever includePrivate says'), the per-record subrequest cost, and that the response signals remaining data. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then layers return shape, privacy policy, and pagination cost in short purposeful clauses. Dense but nearly every sentence adds operational value; mildly long for the surface area.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return column order (recordId then fields in declared order) and the pagination signal. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents every parameter including csv quoting and the private-field behavior. The description usefully reinforces the csv-never-private rule and the limit/offset pattern but adds little that the schema does not already carry, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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+resource ('Export a table's records') and immediately positions it against the sibling import tool, framing export as the verification counterpart. An agent can distinguish it from muninn_table_records_import/list without opening any schema.

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?

Names the paired import tool and the verification use case, and gives an explicit condition to paginate ('pass limit/offset on a large table'). It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over the closely-related muninn_table_records_list sibling, leaving one alternative ambiguous.

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