export_constituent_profile

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

The description states the tool writes an 'AI Access Log' note automatically in full and assisted modes, contradicting the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency. No other behavioral details beyond the annotation contradiction.

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 a single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then details. Every sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary but well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description lists all data categories included and explains parameter behavior. It mentions parallel fetching and the automatic note writing. Could add return format but otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds useful context: explains that name may error with candidate list, that constituent_id is preferred, and gives default limits for gift_limit and note_limit.

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 states it is a comprehensive one-shot export of everything LGL has on a constituent, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_donor_context. The verb 'export' and resource 'constituent profile' are specific.

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 tells when to use this vs. get_donor_context: 'Slower and heavier than get_donor_context; prefer that for a quick lookup and use this when you actually need everything.' Also explains behavior under different modes (full, assisted, read-only).

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