export_data

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the 24-hour rate limit, the need for an authenticated Proof account, and the required setup step. It does not describe the output format or whether the export is synchronous, but the disclosed constraints are meaningful and actionable.

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 three focused sentences: the purpose, the rate limit, and the access prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, rate limiting, authentication, and a critical setup caveat. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention what the returned export looks like or that it returns the account data directly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter explanations, which 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 states an exact verb and resource: it exports all account data, and frames it under GDPR Article 20 for data portability. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower export-like siblings such as export_authorizations, since it covers all account data rather than a subset.

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 explicit prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart) and the rate limit of 1 export per 24 hours. It also explicitly warns that start_login does not enable this tool, which is a useful when-not signal, though it does not name an alternative tool for narrower exports.

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