Compare before and after each event

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: the causal caveat ('what followed... not what caused it'), metric direction, top-100 cap, unranked_days, pending_days, hidden_days, and the 'alongside' field. This is richer than the safety annotations and appropriately transparent.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the core measurement purpose and then unpacking return semantics. Every sentence adds needed context for a complex comparison tool without an output schema, though the single-paragraph nested format is heavy.

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 a complex, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies return structure, metric behavior, data limitations, and the causality caveat. Together with annotations and fully covered input schema, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are documented structurally; the description largely duplicates those fields while clarifying window-day symmetry and keyword-rank direction. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting, with only marginal added meaning.

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 ('Measure what followed each event') and resource (application events, user notes, app updates), and distinguishes the default visibility-score metric from the keyword-rank alternative via keyword_id. An agent can tell this apart from general history tools like get_app_score_history.

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?

Implies the use case—comparing before/after windows around application events over the last year—but does not state when to choose this over history-specific siblings such as get_app_score_history or get_keyword_rank_history. It gives clear context but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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