legal_consent_log_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the manage_options auth requirement, the return shape { filename, csv }, that the csv is writable as-is, the logging prerequisite tied to legal_put_consent's log_enabled, and a cvrt-legal 0.5.0+ version gate. It stops short of explicitly labeling the operation read-only/side-effect-free, which would complete the behavioral picture.

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 and packs prerequisite, return shape, and version into compact sentences, each carrying distinct information. Slightly dense but nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value, and it covers auth, prerequisites, version requirements, and parameter semantics. An agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the from/to/site parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's cross-reference to legal_consent_log_stats for from/to rules adds minor value but no new syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export the raw consent decision log as CSV') and notes it uses the same from/to rules as legal_consent_log_stats, which implicitly distinguishes it from that stats sibling and from legal_consent_log_get. An agent can tell what it produces (a CSV file) without opening the schema.

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?

Frames usage by referencing legal_consent_log_stats for the day-range semantics, giving clear context on the family. It does not spell out explicitly when to prefer this over legal_consent_log_get or when-not to use it, but the 'raw log' vs statistics distinction is inferable.

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