get_business_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value: 'JSON string with period summary, comparison to previous period, highlights, new installs, and recent churns.' This is helpful, but it omits details like error handling, custom range formatting, or any rate limits. It gives enough to understand the output but not deeper behavioral traits.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The format is front-loaded and easily parseable.

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 is moderately simple (2 params, output schema present). The description covers purpose, all parameters, and return format. It lacks error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read-only digest tool this is sufficient. Given the sibling tools, it could mention when to use this digest vs more focused tools, but overall it is complete enough.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates fully. It explains app_id as 'App GID or numeric ID (required)' and period as '7d' (weekly), '30d' (monthly), or custom range.' This adds concrete meaning beyond the schema's minimal title and default fields.

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 a business digest with key metrics and highlights.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_revenue_summary or get_churn_analysis, though the 'digest' framing implies a combined overview.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives parameter usage (app_id and period) but no context on scenarios where this digest is preferred over get_revenue_summary or get_churn_analysis. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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