export_website

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 disclose the return encoding and format (base64-encoded ZIP containing CSVs), which is genuinely useful and non-obvious. It says nothing about permissions required, export size limits, whether the ZIP is a synchronous snapshot, or how pagination affects the exported dataset, which are material for a potentially expensive bulk operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key output characteristic is stated immediately. Nothing redundant is included.

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 5-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits timestamp units, the meaning of pagination on an export, the analytics scope of the CSVs, and any size/limit behavior an agent would need to call this safely.

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 5 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critically, startAt/endAt are untyped integers with no hint about units (epoch seconds vs milliseconds), and page/pageSize on an 'export' tool is ambiguous — whether they paginate the export itself or bound the underlying data is unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource ('Export website analytics') and even the output artifact ('base64-encoded ZIP of CSV files'), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, contrast itself with the many sibling read tools (get_stats, get_metrics, get_pageviews) that also return analytics data, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 choose this over get_stats/get_metrics/get_pageviews, nor any prerequisite context such as required scope or expected export size/cost. The agent must infer that 'export' means bulk retrieval rather than the paginated read endpoints.

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