tokportal_export_analytics_videos

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). It doesn't mention that this is an export that produces a file, whether it's synchronous, what data is included, or the CSV format. With annotations covering safety, the description still lacks value like 'exports data for a given date range and filters' which is crucial.

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, straightforward sentence. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. No fluff, but it may be too brief to convey necessary context. Given that the schema covers parameters, this level of brevity is acceptable.

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 7 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description should clarify what the exported CSV contains, whether it's all videos or filtered, and any constraints. The single sentence leaves substantial ambiguity. The agent cannot infer the result format or the scope without prior knowledge. This is incomplete for a tool with such a generic name.

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 all 7 parameters are documented with descriptions in the schema. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-level meaning, but that's acceptable since the schema does the heavy lifting. The baseline of 3 applies because the description provides no extra context about how parameters interact or default behavior.

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 'Export analytics videos CSV' clearly states the action (export) and the resource (analytics videos) with output format (CSV). It's distinguishable from sibling export tool tokportal_export_analytics_report_html which exports reports as HTML, and other analytics tools focus on retrieval/dashboard, not export. However, it doesn't specify the scope of videos (all? filtered?) which could be clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or that it's for data extraction vs real-time viewing. Sibling tools like tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard or tokportal_get_analytics_series are not referenced, so the agent has no direction on choosing this export tool over them.

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