get_top_property_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not state safety, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 filler. It conveys the core action and object in minimal words, fitting the 'appropriately sized' criterion well.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'values' means (e.g., counts, users, sessions), how results are ordered, or what a typical response looks like. For a tool with five parameters (four required), this minimal description leaves too much unsaid for correct invocation.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates 'top N' and 'event property', which loosely map to 'top_n' and 'property', but adds no new meaning beyond the schema entries. It does not clarify the format of 'from' and 'to' (YYYYMMDD is in schema) or the meaning of 'event_name' beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('top N values for an event property over a date range'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_trends' or 'get_events', though the phrase 'top property values' implies a ranking use case that is distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools. The description only states the action without any contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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