segment_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the useful operational constraint of a 2/minute rate limit. It also clarifies the output focus (member counts, additions, removals), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and metric set are front-loaded, and the rate limit is clearly appended as a separate operational warning. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose, metrics, and rate limit, but it lacks any routing guidance against sibling tools and does not mention the time-scoping flexibility beyond what the schema already documents. Given no output schema, a bit more contextual hand-holding would improve completeness.

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 high at 83%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description does not add detail about how timeframe, start, end, year, or quarter interact, but the schema descriptions already cover these, 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 states what the tool reports—segment performance metrics—and enumerates the specific metrics included: member counts, additions, removals. This is clear and goes beyond the title, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_segments or metric_aggregate.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_segments or metric_aggregate. The rate limit is operational context, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection context from the name and description alone.

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