U-App get active accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and the app type constraint. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what constitutes an active account, or any data limits or authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical constraint and a reference. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned trend data looks like, how active accounts are defined, or any error conditions. The agent would need more context to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. All parameters (appkey, dates, periodType, channel) are adequately described in the schema, so the description adds no extra value here.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'active account trend data', and importantly notes it is only for game apps, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like umeng_get_active_users or umeng_uapp_get_active_users. The official API reference adds further clarity.

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?

The description explicitly states that this API is only for game apps, providing a clear constraint on when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the constraint itself guides the agent away from using it for non-game apps. The official API name helps in cross-referencing documentation.

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