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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the single audited egress path, the returned payload (CSV text + row count + filename), refusal of dashboard/segment ids, and the fact that every export writes a report_runs row and an audit_log event. That logging disclosure is slightly at odds with readOnlyHint=true, which keeps this from a clean 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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and return format, and reasonably sized. The dedicated 'When to use' block largely restates the opening paragraph, which is mild redundancy rather than 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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it still does so helpfully. Given the complex nested ReportSpec parameter and the read-only/audit nuance, one could ask for a bit more (e.g., limits/pagination semantics), leaving this just below complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents report_id, its precedence over definition, and the inline ReportSpec. The description adds only marginal framing ('give this or an inline ReportSpec'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (export), resource (one saved analysis's results), and output format (CSV), plus the mechanism (audited egress path). This is clearly separable from siblings like run_report and schedule_report without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and a concrete when-not ('a dashboard is not one CSV') with redirect guidance (pick a linked panel's source analysis or an inline panel's spec). It does not name a sibling alternative by tool name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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