conduyt_export_contact_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, the owner/admin API-key requirement, and the complete set of returned record types. It omits operational details such as whether the export is synchronous for large contacts or how missing/forbidden contacts are surfaced.

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 the GDPR purpose, then the returned contents, then safety and auth constraints. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the read-only safety profile and a detailed inventory of returned data. Error behavior is the only notable gap.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already described as a contact UUID, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 precise verb and resource ('GDPR data-portability export') and enumerates exactly what the export contains. It is distinguishable from the plural bulk sibling conduyt_export_contacts and from conduyt_get_contact by its compliance-oriented scope.

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 'GDPR data-portability' framing implies the use case, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over conduyt_get_contact or conduyt_export_contacts, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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