export_data_table_as_csv

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

The description labels the operation '(read-only)', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. A parenthetical claiming read-only directly contradicts the structured safety profile an agent will trust. Although the description does disclose the optional file write, the read-only label conflicts with the annotations, flagging an Annotation Contradiction.

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 return shape in two tight sentences, with the alternative-routing note following. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'Returns: {...}' is slightly redundant given the prose already lists the fields.

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 enumerating the return shape (row_struct, row_count, csv, written_to). Guidance to prefer JSON for nested data is present. The only shortfall is the unresolved read-only/destructive tension, which reduces confidence in the side-effect profile.

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 file_path, data_table, and table_path. The description reinforces the optional file write to a UTF-8 file but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 whole DataTable to CSV) and names the exact counterpart tools, import_data_table_csv and export_data_table_as_json. An agent can distinguish what this does versus its siblings 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('use it as the backup before import_data_table_csv') and when-to-prefer-an-alternative ('nested structs and TMaps do not survive CSV cleanly, so export_data_table_as_json is the faithful copy'). Alternative and selecting condition are both named.

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