export_funder_issues

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

The description mentions exporting to exports/, implying a file-writing side effect, but does not disclose potential file overwrites, authentication requirements, or execution duration. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short.

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?

The single sentence is compact and well-structured, with no wasted words. While extremely brief, it is not verbose and gets to the point quickly, though the terseness edges toward under-specification.

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 four parameters, zero documentation, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. The correct output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and usage context.

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 provides zero information about the four parameters (fmt, award_query, max_records, funder_query). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate but does not mention any parameter names or meanings.

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 clearly states the action: run funder_compliance and export issues to exports/. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by explicitly referencing funder_compliance. However, 'issues' is vague and no scope details are provided, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_health_issues or export_search_results. The description only states the action without any contextual cues or exclusion criteria.

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