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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what data is returned (signup cohorts, churn timeline, cohort retention) but doesn't add contextual behavior like time ranges or aggregation semantics. With low annotation bar, this is broadly sufficient, though not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Purpose and usage guidance packed efficiently.

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?

Annotations cover safety/idempotency and no output schema existsations? Sibling set has many similar get/list tools; description names result components but not specific lookback/period/format or how the parameter shapes results. Adequate for simple param but lacks a bit context.

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 0% and the description does not explain projectId or how it affects the query. The single required parameter is left to the agent to infer from its name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get signup cohorts, churn timeline and cohort retention.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sm_get_member_overview or sm_list_members by naming the exact growth/retention metrics it returns.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for list-growth and attrition questions,' which gives the agent a clear selection criterion. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the use-case guidance is strong enough for typical routing decisions.

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