export_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it discloses the never-writes-on-first-call design, the 5-minute single-use handle tied to exact content, the export scope requirement, and the content limitation (no buyer contact details). This fully informs the agent about side effects and constraints.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary sentence, then expands with necessary behavioral details. Every sentence contributes unique value; the multi-paragraph structure is appropriate for the two-phase workflow and is not padded.

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's two-phase mutation complexity, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, side effects, permissions, prerequisite workflow, and failure behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and safely invoke the tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds significant workflow semantics: confirm_handle duration and single-use behavior, the effect of changing format/notices on handle validity, and the handling of not-found tender refs. These go beyond the schema and materially improve invocation correctness.

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 immediately states the tool writes a report of tender notices to a server file in markdown or CSV format. This verb+resource+format specification clearly distinguishes export_report from the read-only sibling tools (search, get, summarize).

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 an explicit two-phase workflow: call with tender_refs to preview, then call again with confirm_handle to write. It also instructs the agent to let the user decide and never confirm on their behalf, and mentions the required export scope. This is actionable guidance beyond simply stating existence.

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