calc_customer_clv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it calculates and tiers but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what outputs are returned, how missing data is handled, or any performance constraints. The behavior is stated but not elaborated.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that includes the formula and tier names. Every word serves a purpose, and the core definition is front-loaded with no 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?

The description explains the calculation logic and tier names, which helps an agent decide to call it. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits the output structure (e.g., whether it returns a table or summary) and does not clarify scope (e.g., whether it covers all customers). These gaps are moderate for a two-parameter analytical tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptive text with defaults, so the schema already provides adequate meaning. The description's formula references the parameters implicitly, reinforcing their role, but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 'Calculate' and names the resource 'Customer Lifetime Value' along with a clear formula and tiering scheme. It distinguishes itself from generic analytics tools by specifying the exact calculation, though it doesn't name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like segment_customers_rfm or detect_customer_churn. Given the many overlapping analysis tools, the absence of any usage direction or exclusions leaves the agent to infer context.

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