clients_export_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that output is base64-encoded binary data, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether pagination/limits apply to large client sets, or whether the export is synchronous or async (potentially requiring the exports_download tool). The limitation on client count or file size is not 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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds one behavioral detail (base64 encoding). Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter export tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, there are gaps: it doesn't clarify whether the export is synchronous or returns immediately with all data, whether there are size limits on the resulting base64 string, which fields are included in the CSV, or how it relates to the exports_download tool. With no output schema to clarify the return structure, a bit more detail about the response would help.

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% — the only parameter (companyId) is documented in the schema as 'Company UUID override (uses active company if not set)'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter documentation. The description does reinforce the 'active company' concept but doesn't add meaningful new semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb (Export), resource (all clients for active company), and output format (CSV file). It distinguishes reasonably from clients_export_saga_xml and other CSV exports (suppliers_export_csv) by specifying it's client data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling clients_export_saga_xml though the format (CSV vs saga XML) makes it fairly obvious.

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 like clients_export_saga_xml, clients_list, or exports_download. It mentions it returns base64-encoded data rather than writing to a file, but there's no explanation of when a user would want CSV vs other export formats, nor mention of the (likely) exports_download tool for fetching results of async exports.

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