auction_export

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, the description corroborates this by stating output goes to a NEW local folder and existing output is not overwritten — resolving the apparent tension between writing and non-destructiveness. It could still mention prerequisite job state or permissions, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

It is extremely short and front-loads the formats and destination, but it reads as a sentence fragment and omits essential framing (that this is an export of a job's results). Brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it.

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 a tool with a required identifier, multiple output formats, and no output schema, the description is missing the job_id relationship, the naming semantics of 'name', and any indication of what the return value contains. Only the overwrite policy is covered.

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%, so job_id (the only required parameter) and name have no documented meaning anywhere. The description does not clarify what job_id refers to or what the optional name does (presumably output file/folder naming), leaving both parameters to guesswork.

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 conveys the action indirectly: export output (JSONL/CSV/Excel) into a new local folder, with existing output preserved. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings such as auction_collect or auction_job_status, which likely also produce output tied to a job.

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 guidance on when to choose this over auction_collect or how it relates to auction_job_status (e.g., must a collect job finish first?). The only usage-adjacent statement is the no-overwrite rule, which is a behavior rather than a selection criterion.

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