export_table_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely valuable behavioral detail: a prompt-injection warning that database content is untrusted and should not be treated as instructions. That is real value beyond the schema. However, it omits the safety profile (read-only vs. mutating), permission/auth requirements, row-size limits, and whether large exports are truncated or paginated.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Parameters and purpose are covered, but for an export tool with no output schema it never says what is actually returned — an inline CSV string, a written file, or a path — nor how large exports behave. That return/destination ambiguity is the main completeness gap.

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%, with each of the five parameters (table_name, database, schema, where, limit) individually documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing further. Baseline 3 is appropriate; there is no extra syntax or format guidance for the where or limit arguments.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (export), resource (table data), and output format (CSV), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_table_data, which presumably also retrieves table rows; the differentiator (CSV file output vs. query result) has to be inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_table_data, execute_query, or list_tables, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing connection or a known table name. The agent must guess that this is the bulk-data-export path.

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