investigate_growth_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it does with the supplied record sets, whether previous_records is needed for comparison, or any cost/rate characteristics. 'Auditable dimensional evidence' gestures at output but adds no actionable behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 not be explained, but for a 4-parameter analytical tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description omits too much: it never indicates the required question/current_records pairing or how previous_records and user_events change the analysis. An agent could not assemble a correct call from this text 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for question, current_records, previous_records, or user_events. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, which keeps this above 1, but nothing explains expected record shapes or the role of the optional event/previous-record inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Investigate a growth-metric change') and hints at method ('formula drivers', 'auditable dimensional evidence'). However, it does nothing to separate this tool from close siblings such as analyze_growth_query, detect_metric_anomalies, or calculate_growth_metrics, so an agent cannot confidently pick it from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping growth/analysis siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., that records must be supplied), and no exclusions. The single sentence describes output flavor rather than invocation context.

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