data.export

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe behavior. Description adds valuable context: exports 'all related data', JSON format, and PII marking. Does not contradict annotations. Could be more specific about scope limits or error behavior.

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?

Description is succinct, starting with the core purpose (GDPR export), then details (target, format, PII). Two languages but no wasted sentences. Every part adds value and is well-structured.

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 tool simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, description covers export purpose, target, format, and PII marking. Missing details like return behavior (file vs stream) or error scenarios, but overall adequate for a compliance tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context by expanding on enum values for 'target' (e.g., 'page (web page + all related data)') and explaining UUID format, enriching beyond 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?

Description clearly states tool exports data under GDPR Art.20 for data portability, specifying targets (page/profile), format (JSON), and PII marking. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like data.delete (deletion) and audit.query (querying), establishing a unique purpose.

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?

Explicitly links tool usage to GDPR Art.20 right to data portability, giving clear context for when to use. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for general data retrieval, leaving some inference to the agent.

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