get_structured_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (structured JSON) but omits critical traits such as whether data is aggregated, what happens with missing inputs, rate limits, or error handling. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite its simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on the return structure, error handling, or how the tool fits among 7 siblings. The absence of an output schema increases the need for behavioral context, which is not provided. This is a significant completeness gap for agent selection.

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 description mentions 'chosen metrics/date range' loosely mapping to all three parameters, but adds no specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for start and end. The schema description coverage is 67% (two of three parameters described), which is moderate; the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'metrics' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'return(s) clean structured JSON for the chosen metrics/date range', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_periods or get_health_metrics, relying on the phrase 'ideal to drop straight into an agent's context window' for implied 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 implies a use case (dropping into an agent's context) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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