openpanel_get_retention_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the conceptual output (user return analysis) but omits critical behavioral details: whether this is read-only, if it aggregates live vs cached data, rate limits, or the return data structure/format.

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 is appropriately concise, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is metadata noise that doesn't aid tool selection. The structure front-loads the purpose but buries the only usage guideline (project_id behavior) in a note.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the cohort retention mechanics, parameter interactions (start_event/return_event), or what data structure gets returned.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. It only explains `project_id` (optional if configured), leaving 5 parameters (`site`, `start_event`, `return_event`, `period`, `cohorts`) completely undocumented. The agent cannot infer that `cohorts` is an integer or what `start_event` values mean without guessing.

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' and resource 'user retention analysis' with scope 'how many users return over time'. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like `openpanel_get_cohort_report` or `openpanel_get_overview_report`, which are similar analytics reports.

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 minimal guidance via the note that 'project_id is optional if configured in environment'. Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this retention report versus cohort reports, funnels, or other OpenPanel analytics tools.

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