export_counterparty_markdown

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds that output is Markdown, but does not disclose how the report is generated, what 'generic' means, or any other behavioral traits like date range handling or output structure.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is too brief to be adequately informative. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a required nested object, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover filtering, output content, or parameter constraints, leaving significant gaps in understanding for agents.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter details, such as the structure of 'counterparty', date formats, 'direction' options, or 'limit' meaning. This leaves agents without critical input information.

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 tool exports a counterparty fiscal document report as Markdown. The verb 'export' and resource are specific, and the Markdown format distinguishes it from sibling tools like aruba_counterparty_report. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other export tools like export_document_markdown or export_period_markdown.

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 lacks information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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