export_to_csv

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

The description provides significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the client splits long ranges (>92 days) and id lists (>50), flattens items into CSV rows using stdlib, writes to a file, and specifies header behavior and missing value handling. It also clarifies it never mutates ad objects, adding context to the annotation readOnlyHint=false.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose sentence, followed by detailed behavior, and then CSV specifics. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: splitting behavior, CSV format, header union, missing values, and side effects (file overwrite). It aligns with annotations and schema, providing a complete understanding without requiring the output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline score of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how the client transparently splits date ranges and id lists, and implies that invalid object_type raises an error. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Export VK Ads statistics to a CSV file on disk', clearly stating the verb (export) and resource (VK Ads statistics). It further specifies the object type and date range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_statistics which return JSON, and it mentions read-only behavior, setting it apart from mutation tools.

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 explains when to use this tool (to export statistics to CSV) and transparently handles range splitting and id list splitting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to sibling alternatives like get_statistics or get_top_objects, leaving the agent to infer the best use case.

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