export_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the return value is 'CSV as text content' and that treatments are optionally included. However, it does not mention defaults, timezone handling, result limits, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a read-style export tool this is adequate, but not rich.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, the use cases are a useful second sentence, and the explicit return type in the third sentence is essential given the lack of an output schema. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with four optional parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essential context: what is exported, the output format, and when to use it. It does not explain the exact CSV structure or default behavior, but those are not required for correct invocation and are partially covered by the schema descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning: it mentions the optional treatments inclusion, which maps to include_treatments, but it does not elaborate on hours or date range parameters. The schema already documents those adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export glucose data (and optionally treatments) as CSV text.' This leaves no doubt about what the tool does, and the CSV output format immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools that return JSON or analytics summaries. It clearly states what is produced and for whom.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: 'sharing with healthcare providers, importing into spreadsheets, or further analysis.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent.

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