cdp_export_report_excel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'export is generated from the cube data on the collection endpoint', hinting at data retrieval and file generation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file size, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, using two sentences efficiently. However, it could be more structured by separating prerequisites and behavioral notes, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover all parameters, lacks behavioral context, and doesn't explain the output (e.g., file format details). For a tool with 4 parameters and export functionality, this is inadequate.

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 only mentions 'cubeId and password' as required, ignoring 'tenant_id' and 'filename' parameters. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what these parameters do or their formats, leaving most semantics 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Export a report as an Excel pivot file') and the resource ('report'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_copy_report_def' or 'cdp_get_report_def', which reduces clarity in context.

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?

The description mentions 'Requires cubeId and password' as prerequisites, which provides some usage context, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other export or report-related tools in the sibling list) or any exclusions. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use is provided.

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