export

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Write ... out to a file' does signal a filesystem mutation, but it says nothing about write permissions, the readonly/_refuse_readonly refusal path, overwrite behavior, or the security hazard of a caller-chosen absolute dest path — all of which live only in the schema's $defs prose, not the tool description.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than deliberate concision given the tool's complexity.

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 an 8-parameter, 5-required filesystem-writing mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, the description omits format options, row limiting, return value, and the critical readonly/trust constraint on dest. An agent could invoke it but not safely or predictably.

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 only 13% (just asset_class), so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'channel, symbol set and time range' and 'file' onto channel/symbols/start_ns/end_ns/dest, but leaves fmt, limit, asset_class, and the nanosecond units of the bounds entirely 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 names a concrete verb (write) and resource (channel, symbol set, time range) with an explicit destination (a file), so an agent can tell this is a bulk data-dump tool rather than a query or catalog lookup. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. query/collect) that would sharpen the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many data-access siblings (query, query_market_data, collect, backfill). An agent must infer that this is the file-materialization path rather than an in-memory fetch.

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