Signed-in activity and retention (admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: an admin-only authorization requirement, the underlying data source (account-linked event store), and a privacy guarantee that results contain aggregates and display names only, never emails. It does not discuss cost, latency, or sampling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 access constraint is front-loaded in a two-word sentence, followed by one dense sentence that lists the returned metrics and closes with the privacy guarantee. Every clause carries information, though the metric enumeration is long enough to approach a list dump.

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 does the necessary work of naming what comes back (totals, active/new users, event counts, engagement rates, daily activity, weekly cohorts), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Authorization and privacy are covered; only the relationship to adjacent analytics tools is left open.

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% with min/max and defaults documented for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the semantics by tying "the period" to the overall metrics and "weekly retention cohorts" to weeks, but adds no range, default, or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 (signed-in activity and retention from the account-linked event store) and enumerates what it returns: totals, new/active users, event counts, engagement rates, per-day activity, weekly retention cohorts. This is clearly distinct from the CRUD/context siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_traffic or get_trood_analytics.

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?

"Admin only" establishes a real prerequisite, and the metric list implies an analytics/reporting use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the plausible alternatives in the sibling set (get_traffic, get_trood_analytics, show_my_trood_data), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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