openpanel_export_events_csv

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully indicates output format (CSV) and configuration behavior (project_id optionality), but omits safety classification (read-only status), pagination behavior details, and date format expectations.

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 with efficient structure—purpose first, configuration note second. Docked one point for '[UNIFIED]' prefix which adds noise without semantic value to the agent.

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?

Inadequate for a 6-parameter filtering export tool with zero schema descriptions. Missing: date format guidance, explanation of 'site' identifier, event filtering semantics, and limit behavior (despite default of 1000).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for 5 of 6 parameters. Only project_id is mentioned (optionality). Critical required parameter 'site' and filtering parameters (event, start, end, limit) are completely undocumented.

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 specific action (Export), resource (events), and format (CSV-formatted data for spreadsheet analysis). The CSV specification clearly distinguishes this from sibling tool 'openpanel_export_events', providing clear differentiation.

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?

Includes one useful usage note that project_id is optional if configured in environment. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this CSV variant over 'openpanel_export_events' or other export formats.

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