Export report

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by disclosing that the report is returned as text with nothing written to disk, and that CSV cells starting with =, +, - or @ get a leading apostrophe to prevent spreadsheet formula execution. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 purpose and formats before the CSV-escaping note and example prompt, and every sentence carries information. The example prompt is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, keeping it just below maximum efficiency.

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, the description needn't explain return structure, and it already covers output medium (text), side effects (none on disk), filtering, and format default. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are enums with defaults already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the default markdown format and the status stage filter without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Export your applications") and states the two output formats, so the tool's identity is unambiguous. The line "returned as text and nothing is written to disk" further separates it from the mutation-oriented siblings add_application and update_status.

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 a clear use case ("so you can share them or open them in a spreadsheet") and an example prompt ("Export all my applications as a CSV") that anchors invocation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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