request_export_report

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

The description implies an asynchronous operation ('submit a request') but does not disclose the response format (likely an export ID), potential errors, rate limits, or that it does not return data directly. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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?

Single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with essential purpose. No wasted 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 6 parameters, required fields, and no output schema, the description omits critical workflow context: it does not mention that the request is asynchronous, what the response contains (e.g., a report ID for later retrieval), or the need to check status via 'get_export_status'. Incomplete for a multi-step export process.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates 'trades or ledgers' and 'CSV/TSV', adding no new information beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 the action ('submit a request'), the resource ('export trades or ledgers'), and the output format ('CSV/TSV'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_export' (which retrieves the file) and 'get_export_status' (which checks status).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_ledgers' or 'query_ledgers' for direct data retrieval). Lacks context about when to submit a request vs. other actions.

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