export_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the export is read-only, what scope of ledger is covered (all agents? caller only?), whether a time window applies, or whether an artifact/file is produced or persisted. Only the output content hint ('human-sponsor attribution') is disclosed.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the resource and output format front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation-adjacent export operation, the description should clarify the report's scope and contents. Notably there is no time-range parameter, yet the description never says what period or population of actions is exported, leaving a real gap for a compliance use case.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents json/csv with a default. The description merely restates the format options, adding no new semantics such as default behavior or format-specific differences (e.g., CSV flattening of attribution fields).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Export the agent action ledger as a compliance report' with explicit formats. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as audit_log or verify_ledger, so it stops 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 'compliance report' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of audit_log or verify_ledger as alternatives. An agent facing both this and audit_log gets no routing signal.

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