get_dau

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'daily active users over time' with breakdowns, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what format/timezone the data uses, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational 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?

Perfectly concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get daily active users over time' establishes the main function, and 'including breakdowns for CLI, cloud agent, and Bugbot usage' adds valuable specificity without redundancy.

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 read operation with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about output format, data granularity, timezone handling, or how the breakdowns are structured. Without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more guidance about what to expect from the 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 3 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'breakdowns for CLI, cloud agent, and Bugbot usage' which hints at output structure but doesn't clarify if these are separate parameters or result fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Get daily active users over time' with specific breakdowns (CLI, cloud agent, Bugbot). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily active users'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_daily_usage' or 'get_usage_events' that might provide similar metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_daily_usage', 'get_usage_events', or 'get_user_deep_dive'. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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