prepare_latest_export_for_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that it returns 'next steps,' but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is asynchronous, what the response format is, or that it may initiate a long-running job. The description is too thin to give an agent confidence in the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single short sentence, but its brevity is not effective conciseness—it under-specifies to the point of being unhelpful. The structure also front-loads the vague 'High-level workflow' label rather than concrete usage details, wasting the little space it has.

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?

Given 5 parameters (1 required, 1 enum), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the workflow steps, the expected return value, or how 'download next steps' relate to export jobs. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. It does not explain what questionnaire_identity refers to, what export_type options imply, or how output_path is used. The description provides zero added value over the raw schema.

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 clear action ('start an export') for a specific resource ('one questionnaire'), but the second half ('return export job/download next steps') is vague and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like start_export or export_all_formats. It conveys a high-level wrapper but lacks specific scope or differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The label 'High-level workflow' hints at a wrapper but offers no explicit routing or context for when it should be selected over more direct export tools.

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