cohort_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description only outlines the output, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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, informative sentence that front-loads the key purpose and output components. It is concise with no wasted words. However, breaking it into bullet points could improve scannability, which prevents a score of 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by detailing return values or behavioral nuances. It lists what is returned (stats, deltas, top lists) but lacks format, limits (e.g., always top 10?), or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete for confident usage.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (range, country, website_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'over a range', which loosely corresponds to the range parameter. It does not enrich parameter meanings beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'one-call snapshot' with stats, deltas, and top lists for URLs, referrers, and events over a range. It distinguishes this consolidated report from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics (e.g., get_stats, get_event_data). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, preventing a score of 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stats or get_event_data. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This omission makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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