export_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data goes to disk and mentions a 'generous safety ceiling' for long-running queries, which adds useful context. However, it does not explain behaviors like file format, destination path, failure modes, or whether the operation is destructive, leaving significant gaps for a write 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?

The description is compact, with a clear main action in the first sentence, a practical prerequisite in the second, and a reassurance about safety. Every sentence contributes value with no wasteful filler, making it well-structured and efficient.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and only a basic output schema indicator, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, output location/form, and clear differentiation from get_data. The brief safety note and preview advice are helpful but do not fully cover the tool's operational context.

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 0%, and the description never mentions any of the six parameters, including required ones like codes and years. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Write a full SINIM panel to disk instead of the model's context.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_data and preview_data by emphasizing output to disk rather than context, and recommends preview_data as a precursor. This is a clear, specific purpose with sibling differentiation.

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 tells the user to call preview_data first for sanity-checking, which is a clear usage guideline. It implies this tool is for large exports that exceed context limits, contrasting with in-context retrieval. However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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