Get MAU Trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window behavior ('over the last N months'), but this closely mirrors the parameter semantics and does not disclose return format or aggregation details, so it provides only marginal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 one concise sentence of ten words, fully front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only analytics tool, the combination of the clear description, full schema coverage, and strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) provides sufficient context. No output schema is present, but the trend output is intuitive from the description, and no further elaboration is needed for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter 'months' with a description, range, and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('monthly active users trend'), and scope ('over the last N months'), making its purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lyzr_get_mau (current MAU) and lyzr_get_dau_trend (daily active users) through the phrase 'monthly active users trend'.

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 implies usage—if you need a monthly active users trend, use this tool—but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on comparing it with lyzr_get_dau_trend or lyzr_get_activity_metrics, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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