Export Forms answers

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true but don't convey the async model. The description adds crucial context the annotations cannot: the call returns a pollable operation, an empty body defaults to exporting everything as xlsx, and the binary result is not retrievable over MCP. It omits retry/idempotency nuance (idempotentHint=false means a re-invocation starts a new export).

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-loads the core action, then the operational workflow in a tight second sentence. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return (operation id to poll) and how to obtain the file. It leaves 'terminal' status semantics and failure handling unspecified, but covers what an agent needs to invoke and follow up 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 100%, so the nested body fields are fully documented already; the description's 'empty body exports every answer as xlsx' largely restates the schema's own default note. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start an async export of a form's answers') with output formats, distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like forms_answers_list. An agent can tell immediately this initiates a job rather than returning data.

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?

Gives a clear usage workflow: poll the returned id with operations_get until terminal, then download via the CLI. It does not explicitly contrast with forms_answers_list or state when-not to use this, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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