marketplace_churn_prediction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the output contents (probabilities, risk signals, retention actions) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and output, with no wasted words. The definition of churning in parentheses adds clarity without bloat.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by detailing return values. It names the three output categories but lacks specifics like output structure, probability ranges, or pagination behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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?

Both parameters (limit, toolId) have full descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') with a clear resource ('users at risk of churning') and explicitly lists the outputs (probability scores, risk signals, recommended retention actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling marketplace tools like revenue or demand prediction.

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?

It implies a proactive-retention use case through 'Helps proactively retain users,' but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools like marketplace_demand_prediction or marketplace_tool_insights, so guidance is only implicit.

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