Export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls far short. It does not say where the export goes, what format is emitted, whether the operation writes files or has side effects, or whether the adapter value must come from list_export_adapters. Only the bare mechanism (an adapter is involved) is conveyed.

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?

It is a single grammatical sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. But at nine characters of content it reads as under-specification rather than conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.

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 tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a nested options object, the description supplies almost none of what an agent needs. It omits adapter discovery, output location/format, and any behavioral caveats, leaving the caller unable to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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 0% across three parameters, including a free-form nested `options` object with additionalProperties and a required `adapter` string. The description mentions the adapter concept but gives no expected values, no relationship to list_export_adapters, and no hint about what `options` accepts or what `project_id` scopes. The schema gap is entirely unmitigated.

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 states a verb (export) and a resource (narrative data) plus a mechanism (via adapter), so the basic action is identifiable. However, "narrative data" is vague about scope, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from the related sibling list_export_adapters or to say what is actually produced. Adequate but not sharp.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling to consult first. The presence of list_export_adapters strongly implies the agent must discover a valid adapter value beforehand, and the description never makes that connection. Nothing is misleading, but nothing is offered either.

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