export_assays_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the CSV/TSV output angle but says nothing about what 'aggregated' means, how the query and aop_ids paths interact, or any rate/size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, so it stops just short of ideal.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-description-coverage tool with several similarly named limit parameters, the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the input semantics and query-vs-aop_ids behavior are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains limit, search_limit, aop_limit, per_aop_limit, or min_hitcall, leaving the multi-limit structure and the hitcall threshold entirely opaque; only 'CSV or TSV' loosely maps to the format enum.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (aggregated assay candidates) plus output formats, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling exporters like export_draft_review_artifact and export_tool_call_audit_log_evidence. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'from a query or explicit AOP list' implies the two input modes but gives no guidance on when to prefer one over the other, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to siblings like search_assays_for_key_event.

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