tokmeter_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered, and the description adds real value: it states the entire payload is returned (no pagination or truncation) and flags that exported strings originate from untrusted transcripts and must be treated as data, not instructions. That prompt-injection warning is behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It does not say whether filters interact or whether very large exports are bounded.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information an agent needs, including the security caveat. The second sentence ('Returns the full data payload in the requested format') is largely redundant with the first, which keeps it from being fully tight.

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 read-only export tool with no output schema and full schema description coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, format choice, and the untrusted-data warning. The remaining gap is how the five filters combine and whether large exports are chunked, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining the practical meaning of each format value rather than just listing them. It does not add anything for data, scope, project, or providers, leaving filter interaction semantics entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (export) plus resource (token usage data) and enumerates the output formats, which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only reporting siblings like tokmeter_pulse or tokmeter_digest. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer that this is the bulk-dump tool.

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 format guidance ('JSON for programmatic consumption, CSV for spreadsheets, Markdown for reports') is genuinely useful for choosing the required parameter value. However, it never says when to call this tool instead of sibling tools such as tokmeter_pulse or tokmeter_search, nor does it set any exclusions or preconditions.

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