paper_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output carries explicit simulation labels, which is useful context, but says nothing about export scope (all trades vs. a date range), size limits, or whether data is returned inline or written to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the simulation-labeling guarantee come first. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should state what the caller receives (payload vs. file path, pagination, row limits). That is absent, leaving a genuine gap despite the simple surface area.

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?

account_id is documented in the schema and format's enum already enumerates json/csv, so coverage does most of the work. The description adds the format values but introduces 'trade ledger or full account' with no corresponding parameter to select between them, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies parameter meaning.

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 (export) and resource (local simulation trade ledger / full account) plus output formats, which clearly separates it from siblings like strategy_export, research_export, or drawing_export. It does not explicitly name a sibling it supersedes, so it stops short of maximum clarity.

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 phrase 'local simulation' implicitly scopes usage to paper-trading data rather than real accounts or strategy reports, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many other export tools.

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