openpanel_export_profile_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context by specifying 'GDPR data portability,' implying the export contains personal data and is intended for data transfer requests. However, it fails to disclose whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, potential timeouts for large profiles, or the structure of the returned data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid tool selection, slightly detracting from an otherwise appropriately terse description.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. A single sentence cannot adequately document the required parameters or explain what 'all data' encompasses (events, properties, sessions, etc.) for an AI agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'user profile' implicitly maps to the profile_id parameter, the description provides no guidance for the other three parameters (site, project_id, format), particularly what 'site' refers to (domain? site ID?) or available format options beyond the default 'json' in the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Export') and resource ('all data for a user profile'), and distinguishes it from sibling export tools (e.g., openpanel_export_events, openpanel_export_chart_data) by specifying 'GDPR data portability,' indicating a complete user data dump for compliance purposes rather than analytics exports.

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?

While 'GDPR data portability' implies a compliance use case, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other export tools (e.g., openpanel_export_events_csv for event data), and omits prerequisites like requiring specific privacy permissions or how to handle large exports.

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