mixpanel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets data' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). For a 10-parameter query tool with complex filtering, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and use cases. It's front-loaded with the core function ('Get data for frequency of actions over time') followed by specific applications. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the use cases.

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?

For a complex 10-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like (tabular? aggregated counts?), how results are structured, or provide examples of typical queries. The description should compensate for the lack of output schema by describing the return format, but doesn't.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'unit' and 'addiction_unit', or provide examples for the complex 'where' expression. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get data for frequency of actions over time' with specific use cases like analyzing user action frequency, identifying behavior patterns, and tracking engagement. It provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('data for frequency of actions'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'aggregate_event_counts' or 'query_segmentation_report' that might also involve frequency or time-based analysis.

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 includes 'Useful for analyzing how often users perform specific actions...' which implies usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregate_event_counts' or 'query_segmentation_report'. There are no when-not-to-use statements, prerequisites, or named alternatives mentioned.

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