acedatacloud_export_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only export operation and mentions a size limit, but it does not disclose what happens when the limit is exceeded (e.g., truncation vs. error), whether authentication is required, or any side effects. This is a moderate gap given zero annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a practical hint. Every word earns its place; no fluff. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the main purpose and a key usage hint, but does not address when to prefer this over get_usage/list_usage, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The output schema handles return format, but the description could be richer for an export operation.

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?

The schema describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying that filters can narrow results (as in 'narrow filters'). It does not enrich parameter understanding or clarify format/units beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool exports API usage data as a CSV file with a byte limit ('Export bounded API usage CSV'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_usage or get_usage, which likely return structured data rather than a file export.

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 a concrete usage instruction: 'narrow filters when the response exceeds the limit.' This tells the agent how to handle large results. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use this export, so it falls short of the highest standard.

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