cohort_compare

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description does not disclose any additional traits such as prerequisites or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential deprecation information with zero waste.

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?

Although the tool is deprecated and has an output schema, the description lacks any functional detail. An agent that might need to invoke it (e.g., in legacy contexts) receives no guidance on its behavior or results.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The deprecation notice adds no meaning to the input schema parameters.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only provides a deprecation notice and an alternative. The purpose is implied by the name 'cohort_compare' but not explicitly described.

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 clearly tells the agent to use 'cohort(depth="compare", compare_with=...)' instead, providing explicit guidance on when not to use this tool and what alternative to use.

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