customers_lifetime_value

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool requires a higher plan. This is useful context beyond the empty schema. However, it does not say what happens on invocation (e.g., error message, blocked call) or any other behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the upgrade warning, and contains no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting the tool's actual purpose, though the sentence that exists is efficient.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It fails to define what customers_lifetime_value actually does, making the description inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's role. It only communicates the access restriction, leaving the core function entirely unexplained.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is required because there are no parameters to explain.

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 only states 'UPGRADE REQUERIDO' and that a higher plan is required, but never mentions that this tool computes customer lifetime value. It does not state any verb+resource for the tool's core function, making it indistinguishable from a license/upgrade tool rather than an analytics tool.

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 tells the agent to use 'license_status' to see plan options, which is a useful pointer for upgrade-related actions but gives no guidance on when customers_lifetime_value itself should be used. It implies the tool is gated but does not explain alternatives for the actual lifetime-value functionality.

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