export_xbrl_csv

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states the write target (/tmp/spr-books/exports), that a new folder is created, that a name collision causes failure unless overwrite is true, and what the response contains (folder, file names, row count). Annotations already cover the readOnly/idempotent profile, and the description adds the operational details an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output, then the failure/overwrite rule, then the sibling routing. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly long, though nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return values (folder, file names, row count), and covers naming rules, collision handling, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a real constraint not in the schema — give a short folder name, not a path — and explains the overwrite condition (replace an earlier export of that name) in context. That is meaningful added value over the schema text.

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 and resource: writes the book's payments as xBRL-CSV, names the exact output files (mpp-report.json, mpp-payments.csv) and the profile followed. Clearly distinguishable from export_package, which is named as the alternative for sealed copies.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use export_package instead when the goal is a sealed copy for an auditor or counterparty. Also states the precondition/behavioral rule for reuse of a folder name (fails unless overwrite is true), so the agent knows when to set that flag.

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