analyze_behaviour

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the upstream cost ($0.05 USDC on Base), the per-call (not per-habit) pricing model, and what the analysis produces. What it omits is payment mechanics (how the x402 charge is settled) and whether anything is persisted, which matters for a paid call.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: what it does, what comes back, when to use it, what it costs. Every clause carries new information and the cost, the most decision-relevant fact, is left where it belongs, at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return payload (adherence, consistency, streak momentum, lapse-risk flags, highlights, watchouts, recommendations). Only the payment/settlement path for the USDC charge is left unexplained, which is a real gap for a paid tool but not a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100% and every per-habit field already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by supplying the actual price and currency, which the schema only alludes to as 'price is per CALL' — that number is what drives the batching decision.

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 (behavioural analysis over habits/recurring activities) and names the unit of work and the cap (up to 25 in one call). An agent can distinguish it from analyze_reliability or build_habit_plan without opening the schema.

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?

Lists plausible use cases (adherence monitoring, routine optimisation, engagement/churn signals, streak analysis), which implies when to reach for it. But it never names siblings like analyze_reliability or recommend_next_actions, so the agent gets no explicit guidance on when this tool is the wrong choice.

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