openpanel_get_ab_test_results

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions comparison behavior (variants by conversion rate) but fails to disclose operational characteristics: no mention of rate limits, result format, whether data is real-time or cached, or typical response size. Claims to 'Get' (read) but doesn't confirm read-only status.

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?

Two sentences, reasonably front-loaded with main purpose first. [UNIFIED] tag appears to be metadata leakage but doesn't severely hurt readability. Second sentence dedicated to important parameter guidance. No redundant phrases.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description inadequately compensates for missing structured documentation. Missing: parameter value formats, return value structure, error conditions, and example usage. Tool complexity demands richer description.

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 0%, requiring heavy description compensation. Description only explains project_id (optional if env configured). Critical parameters site, test_name, and conversion_event lack semantics—what format is site? Is test_name the display name or ID? What constitutes a valid conversion_event? Default value '30d' for date_range not mentioned.

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 specific verb (Get), resource (A/B test results), and scope (comparing variants by conversion rate). [UNIFIED] prefix is noise but doesn't obscure clarity. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying A/B test context vs other OpenPanel analytics tools.

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?

Provides one explicit usage note about project_id being optional when configured in environment. However, lacks guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like openpanel_compare_funnels or openpanel_get_funnel_conversion, and doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring an existing test.

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