Export response timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by naming the underlying API method (export_timeline) and clarifying authentication (using configured service account, not session key). This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail response format or pagination.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides essential authentication guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 excellent annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), full parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The agent knows it is a safe read operation, what it returns, and how authentication works.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the aggregation periods (day/hour) and date range, but these are already part of the parameter descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the verb (return), resource (response counts), and scope (by day or hour for a date range). The tool name 'export_timeline' matches its purpose, and it is distinct from siblings like export_responses which handle raw responses.

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 states it returns aggregated counts and mentions authentication, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives such as export_responses or export_statistics. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no direct comparisons are provided.

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