tokportal_export_analytics_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the output is a CSV file, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any rate-limiting, pagination, or data volume characteristics—though with no destructive behavior, the transparency is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient. Slight improvement could be made by adding a brief usage note without increasing length significantly.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format beyond 'CSV', nor the behavior of the date range, repeatable filters, or workspace. Given the schema coverage and lack of output schema, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of how filters combine or what 'Repeatable' means in practice). For 7 parameters, the description is minimal.

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' states the verb 'Export', resource 'analytics videos', and output format 'CSV'. However, among sibling tools like 'tokportal_export_analytics_report_html' and numerous analytics-related tools, it does not differentiate its scope (e.g., what specific video analytics are exported, or how it differs from other export/get tools).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'tokportal_get_video_analytics', 'tokportal_list_account_video_analytics', or 'tokportal_export_analytics_report_html'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess usage intent.

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