Export Database Table

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the managed-directory write target, that no destination path is accepted, the content-bound confirmation requirement for unbounded data exports, and that file metadata is returned.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero redundancy; the scope and target directory are front-loaded, and the confirmation and return-value notes each carry distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the description covers the key confirmation behavior. But for a 13-parameter tool at 23% schema coverage it omits meaningful parameter semantics, and the duplicate confirmation parameters (confirm/confirmationText/confirmation_text) are left unclarified.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, and it covers columns, filters, limit, and content. It leaves format, catalog, schema, workspaceId, and the three confirmation-related parameters (confirm, confirmationText, confirmation_text) unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 (exports), a specific resource (one table), and a specific destination (Unfour's managed exports directory), plus the constraint that no destination path is accepted. This is unambiguous and easily separable from siblings like db.query_readonly or db.execute.

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?

Implies when the confirmation flow kicks in ('Data exports without limit require content-bound confirmation; omitted limit still means all matching rows'), which is useful operational context. However, it never states when to choose this over db.query_readonly or db.execute, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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