Export Dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the return format ('full file contents as text'), the specific fields included in the export (DCPI score, target MW, market, coordinates, notes), and that this is the 'bulk-download path', which goes beyond the annotations.

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 structured with a clear use-case statement, an example, parameter details, return behavior, and exclusions. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value and the most important information (when to use) is front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers the relevant context: why to use it (offline analysis), what it returns (file contents with fields), and when not to use it. The user is given enough information to decide correctly without needing additional external knowledge.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'format' parameter with a clear description ('csv' default, 'geojson' for GIS tools). The description restates this ('Params: format ("csv" default, or "geojson")') and adds an example, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: exporting a saved shortlist out of the platform for offline use, with a specific verb ('pull') and resource ('saved DC Hub shortlist'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_saved_sites and save_site by naming them as alternatives.

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 opens with 'Use when' and gives a concrete example, establishing exactly when to invoke this tool. It also provides explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'Do NOT use to list sites in-chat (use list_saved_sites) or to save a new one (use save_site)', making the decision boundary unambiguous.

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