export_csv

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is useful, but it says nothing about the default limit of 200 rows, the 1000-row ceiling, whether results are truncated silently, or any permission requirements — all material to how an agent should call and interpret this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the read-only and CSV-output facts come first. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than discipline.

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 annotations, no output schema, three parameters and only a third of them documented in the schema, the description needs to do considerably more work. The row-limit behavior and the relationship to read_query — the two things most likely to cause a wrong call — are absent.

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 only 33%: 'database' is documented in the schema while 'sql' and 'limit' are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never mentions the limit parameter, despite a default of 200 that silently caps the export.

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 ('Run a ... query') and a specific result form ('CSV text'), so the resource and output shape are clear. It does not name the sibling read_query, which is almost certainly the alternative, leaving the agent to infer the distinction rather than reading it here.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose export_csv over read_query or sample_rows, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'read-only query' implies a usage context but the choice between CSV export and normal row retrieval is left entirely to inference.

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