Export saved report line evidence as CSV

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavior: large outputs paginate, how to continue via next_offset/offset, and that formula-like text is escaped (CSV-injection handling). It even hints at the return field next_offset despite no output schema, though it does not describe rate limits or the CSV shape further.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return content comes first, then pagination, then routing. Efficient, though the pagination and escaping details are dense shorthand.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (CSV of quantities, prices, issues), pagination mechanics, escaping, and where to go for full evidence. The missing piece is limit semantics, which leaves a minor gap.

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 only 33% (id documented, limit and offset bare). The description clarifies offset usage by tying it to next_offset pagination, adding meaning for one of the undocumented params, but limit's role/bounds are never explained in prose.

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 and resource ('Return CSV of saved SKU quantities, prices and issues') and names the alternative path ('Full source evidence uses report_get/report_page'). An agent can distinguish this export tool from report_get/report_page/report_list without opening the schema.

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?

Routes the agent: use this for CSV of SKU quantities/prices/issues, use report_get/report_page when full source evidence is needed. It gives the alternative and condition, but does not state explicit when-not cases or prerequisites for this tool beyond that.

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