export_compliance_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of auth/permission requirements, result size limits, pagination, or whether output is streamed versus returned inline. For a read-only export, the bar is lower, but no extra context is actually contributed.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and examples kept to the point. The examples are mildly redundant with the enum already in the schema, costing a little density, but nothing is padded.

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 simple three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never says what an export returns (inline JSON/CSV payload versus a file/dataset reference), which is the one detail an agent needs before calling it.

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 format, from_date, and to_date are already documented with enum values and ISO-date semantics. The description's examples restate the same information without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the 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 (Export) and resource (compliance audit log) with the output formats enumerated, which cleanly separates it from siblings like export_dashboard and export_otel. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or scoping conditions, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 examples imply the intended usage (ad-hoc audit-log export with optional date filtering), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing away from the other export tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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