Export candidate records as CSV

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: formula-like cells are escaped (CSV-injection handling) and no financial-loss total is computed, both of which would otherwise surprise a caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The wording is dense to the point of being terse in places ('free CSV pages'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does partially describe the return shape ('one row per record with reasons and group ids'), which is helpful. However, for a paginated export it omits the limit cap and how to advance through pages, so an agent cannot fully drive it from the definition alone.

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 the description must carry the parameters, but it only obliquely touches the id (saved report vs. 'preview:' form) and says nothing about limit or offset. The 1000-row cap and pagination behavior are entirely undocumented outside the schema types.

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?

Specific verb (Export) plus resource (CSV pages of a saved report or unsaved preview), which separates it from report_get/report_page siblings that return report data in another form. The phrase 'free CSV pages' is slightly cryptic but the core action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when a CSV of a report or preview is wanted) and hints that the id may be a saved report or an unsaved preview, but it never names a competing tool such as report_page or states exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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