export_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: read-only, single statement, uncapped result, and that the result is written to a local file rather than returned. It stops short of stating whether an existing file at `path` is overwritten, whether directories are created, or what happens on write failure — meaningful gaps for a file-writing tool.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and its scope, the second handles routing. The key differentiator (file output, uncapped) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the unconventional part — that output goes to a file. Only file-collision/overwrite semantics and path expectations are missing, which is a modest gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: `sql` is constrained to a single read-only SELECT, and the output is a 'local' file in Parquet or CSV. But it never clarifies default format handling, whether `path` must be an existing directory, or expected path style, leaving the non-`sql` parameters thin.

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?

States a specific verb chain (execute a SELECT, write result to file) and an explicit scope ('single read-only SELECT', 'full, uncapped result'). It also names the sibling tool `query` and the condition that distinguishes the two, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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 the agent to use this instead of `query` for large results or when output feeds other local tools, giving both the when and the alternative. No inference is required.

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