export_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions exporting to formats but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'export' but not confirmed), permission requirements, rate limits, file output handling, or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Export query results to various formats'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating format examples).

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens after export (e.g., file generation, download), error handling, or integration with siblings (e.g., using execute_query first). For a data export tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (e.g., connectionId, format with enum, includeHeaders, maxRows, query with SELECT restriction). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies format options but doesn't elaborate on semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('query results'), specifying the target (various formats like CSV, JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_query or write_query by focusing on export rather than execution or writing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., append_insight might also involve data handling).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid connection), exclusions (e.g., not for non-SELECT queries beyond the schema hint), or comparisons to siblings like execute_query (which might return results without export). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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