openpanel_export_events

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Mentions pagination behavior and filtering capability, but omits rate limits, authentication requirements, maximum result limits, or data retention policies expected for an export operation.

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?

Three efficient sentences front-loaded with purpose. '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value. Parameter note is appropriately placed at end.

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 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. Needs explanation of filter semantics (date formats, includes syntax), pagination behavior, and return structure.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring heavy description compensation. Only project_id receives partial documentation ('optional if configured'). Other 8 parameters (site, event, profile_id, start, end, includes, limit, page) rely solely on their names with no semantic explanation.

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?

Clear verb 'Export' and resource 'raw event data' with scope 'filters and pagination'. Distinguishes somewhat from sibling openpanel_export_events_csv by specifying 'raw' records vs CSV format, though could explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Provides one specific usage note that project_id is optional if configured in environment, but lacks guidance on when to choose this over openpanel_export_events_csv or other query tools like openpanel_get_event_count.

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