export_quotes_xlsx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses anonymous read access, that `path` is overwritten, and the atomic all-or-nothing guarantee ('Nothing is written if any list cannot be read'). These are exactly the side-effect and failure semantics an agent needs before a write 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and output sheets, then constraints. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the awkward line breaks and trailing parenthetical 'kept in this order' add minor noise but no real waste.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the produced artifact, auth model, and failure behavior. It stops short of describing error reporting or how unreadable lists are signalled, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the row object shape (env, list as share url or id, optional draft_id), the ordering guarantee, and the `.xlsx` suffix requirement for `path`. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema does not provide.

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 and resource — 'Write a workbook of price lists, one row per environment' — and enumerates the four sheets produced. The agent knows exactly what artifact this creates without opening the schema, and the publish_quote cross-reference distinguishes it from read_price_list.

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?

Explains the draft_id condition ('a list saved by publish_quote finds its decisions by itself; draft_id is for any other'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this export over sibling readers like read_price_list, nor any prerequisite or exclusion beyond the input format.

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