company_cohorts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Build' implying computation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistence), required permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. No behavioral context is provided beyond the action verb.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it omits necessary detail for completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It does not explain the bundle_json format, the meaning of persisted chains, or expected inputs. An agent would struggle to construct a valid request.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'bundle's plan' and 'persisted chains' but does not map to the parameters like project_id, bundle_json, or payload_json. Required parameters are left undefined, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 (Build) and resource (channel cohort table) and enumerates the key metrics (CAC, payback, LTV) and sources (bundle's plan, persisted chains). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic company_* tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify conditions, exclusions, or mention sibling tools like company_customer_cohorts or company_channel_allocation. An agent must infer suitability.

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