watchlist_export

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it clarifies that output lands in a local artifact store rather than mutating chart state, and that no account session state is read or exported (a privacy boundary an agent would otherwise not know). It still does not say where the artifact lands or what identifier is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the safety boundary. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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 should say more about what is produced; naming the artifact store partially covers this but not the artifact path/handle or whether a job id is returned. For a simple read-only export it is otherwise sufficient.

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 description covers format (JSON or CSV) and implies the watchlist_id scope, but says nothing about target_id or expected_layout_id, whose semantics live only in the schema. With 75% schema coverage that schema carries most of the load, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (export watchlist entries/section order) plus the output formats, which clearly separates it from watchlist_get, watchlist_list and the mutation siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Export ... through the safe local artifact store' implies the use case (you want a file artifact rather than live state), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against watchlist_get or watchlist_import_preview. The agent must infer that this is the artifact-producing path.

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