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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: per-store scoping in multi-store mode, null (not fake-low) for unmatured cohort milestones, churned customers excluded beyond maxDaysInactive, likelyWholesale flagging, exclusion of names/emails by design, and the warning that the mean is misleading when lifetimeValueDistributionNote is present.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the report catalogue is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence that is hard to parse. The content is dense and largely earns its place, but the structure undermines quick scanning.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a good job describing what each report returns (AOV splits, repeat rate, retention % and LTV at 1/3/6/12 months, adminUrl and tags on lapsed rows). The missing piece is the unexplained store parameter referenced in prose but absent from the schema.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema-level facts (store scoping, defaults) and notably references a 'store param' that does not appear in the input schema, which limits the added value.

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+resource ('Get customer behavior and retention insights') and then enumerates all eight report values with the metric each returns, letting an agent distinguish it from get_customers, get_insights, and get_metrics_comparison without opening schemas.

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?

Provides strong per-report usage context ('LEAD WITH MEDIAN when describing the typical customer', 'raise to see the long tail', win-back targeting exclusions). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like get_customers, so it falls short of a full when/alternatives statement.

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