get_structured_export

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

The description discloses pagination behavior, including nextCursor/cursor, and warns about large results. Since annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, no contradiction exists and no hidden mutation or side effect is suggested.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: describing what it returns, explaining pagination, and providing usage advice. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should have provided a clearer picture of the returned JSON shape; it only says 'clean structured JSON' and mentions nextCursor. Pagination, date range, and metrics guidance are covered, but the actual output format remains under-specified.

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 property descriptions cover most parameters, so the baseline is already appropriate. The description does not add much semantic value beyond the schema: cursor behavior, limit, and granularity are already described in the input schema.

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 first sentence clearly describes the tool's deliverable: clean structured JSON for chosen metrics and a date range. It is distinct enough from analytics-oriented siblings like get_trends or compare_periods, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or scope how it differs from query_health_data.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: name metrics and a date range, and avoid bare calls over a full history because they return a lot of data. It provides a clear practical context but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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