query_user_property_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as return format, pagination, limits, or required permissions, offering no value beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite being brief. It is not as extreme as a tautology but still lacks substance.

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?

Given the tool's nested schema, many sibling tools, and presence of an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not provide adequate context for tool selection or understanding of the aggregation types, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'aggregation' and 'user or event property,' which vaguely map to the aggregation and property parameters. It does not explain time_range formats or the meaning of aggregation enum values like USER_NUM, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 clearly states the core function with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('an aggregation over a user or event property'). It distinguishes the tool from non-aggregation siblings like funnel or retention analysis, but it could be confused with query_event_analysis or query_distribution_analysis since it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools. There are no alternative names, exclusions, or contextual hints, leaving tool selection ambiguous for an AI agent.

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