get_churned_merchants

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

With no annotations provided, the description must be self-reliant. It discloses the return format (JSON string with specific fields) and that results are sorted most recent first, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe, read-only operation, nor does it mention any permissions or limitations. Since 'get' implies read-only, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, breaking naturally into action, args, and returns. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, arguments, and return format with sorting. It lacks explicit mention of pagination, limit sizes, or error conditions, but for a straightforward 'get' operation this is sufficient. The description is nearly complete, missing only optional edge-case behavior.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: app_id is a required App GID or numeric ID, and days is an optional look-back period with a default of 30. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema types and is especially valuable given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 begins with 'Get recently churned merchants with uninstall reasons,' which clearly states the action (get), the resource (recently churned merchants), and a distinctive detail (uninstall reasons). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_churn_analysis or get_churn_risk, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 a clear context for what the tool does and what arguments are needed, so an agent can infer when to use it (when a list of churned merchants with reasons is required). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it at an 'implied usage' level rather than providing explicit guidance.

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