find_aha_moments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the ranking metric (behaviour_change, contrasted with lift) and a caveat about causation, which is genuine behavioral context. However it omits cost/runtime ('scan every action'), input expectations, and return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The closing instruction is useful but slightly displaced from the operative description.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, yet the description explains neither the inputs nor what the tool returns or how expensive it is. For a 2-param analytical tool it leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% for two required parameters. csv_path is never mentioned, and value_event is only obliquely gestured at ('every action') without format, expected values, or how it relates to the CSV. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource: scan every action to find the one that turns users into regulars (the 'aha moment'). The ranking rationale distinguishes it conceptually from sibling analysis tools, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (post-hoc product analytics to find an activation driver), and it gives interpretive guidance on how to present results. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many siblings.

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