openpanel_get_cohort_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains what a cohort analysis is conceptually, it fails to disclose output format, whether the operation is read-only, response structure, or any rate limiting/side effects.

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?

Compact at two sentences with key information front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata, but the overall structure efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the primary configuration note without excessive verbosity.

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 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and complex analytics functionality, the description is insufficient. It should explain parameter relationships (e.g., cohort_event vs measure_event), valid date_range formats, and expected return structure to compensate for the bare schema.

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 6 parameters. The description mentions only that `project_id` can be sourced from environment configuration. It provides no semantic guidance for `cohort_type`, `cohort_event`, `measure_event`, or `date_range` (e.g., valid values like 'first_seen' or '6m' format).

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?

Clearly states the tool performs 'cohort analysis' and explains the specific mechanism (grouping by acquisition date and tracking behavior). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling reporting tools like `openpanel_get_retention_report` or `openpanel_get_funnel`, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value.

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 only one usage note regarding `project_id` being optional if configured in the environment. Completely lacks guidance on when to use cohort analysis versus other OpenPanel reporting tools (e.g., retention reports, funnels) or what data is expected as input.

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