read_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the hard ceiling of 500 rows, the default of first 8 columns when columns is empty, whole-row substring matching for contains, and paging semantics for offset. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know before calling.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, and each subsequent line documents one parameter or behavioral constraint without fluff. The formatting is scannable and every line adds necessary operational detail.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: all required arguments are explained, defaults are stated, limits are explicit, and paging/filtering behavior is clear. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: crawl path meaning, export name source and optional .csv suffix, column behavior, contains filter scope, limit ceiling, and offset paging. This is far beyond the bare input 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?

Description opens with 'Read rows from one CSV export' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also names list_exports as the source of export file names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list exports or build reports.

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 clearly implies the workflow: call list_exports to get a valid export name, then read rows from it with filters and paging. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_issues or get_analysis, so it stops short of a 5.

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