survival

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing that demo mode uses synthetic heuristic decisions, never Jev, and that outputs are not calibrated survival odds or profitability. It doesn't explain live-mode behavior, but the risk caveats are substantial and non-obvious.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first defines what the tool does, the second states the critical analytical caveats, and the third explains the demo default. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important limitation is front-loaded.

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 four parameters, a nested input object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must enable correct invocation on its own. It omits what provider affects, how confidence_threshold changes results, and what the tool returns, making the description insufficient for operational use.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies mode by stating that demo is the default and uses synthetic decisions. Provider and confidence_threshold are left completely unexplained, and the input description relies on 'see examples' rather than concrete field guidance.

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 that the tool reports descriptive 60-day longevity for the supplied cohort, which identifies a specific resource and time horizon. It lacks an explicit imperative verb and doesn't name a sibling, but the caveats about not being calibrated survival odds or profitability make the intended scope clear.

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?

It gives clear usage context: results are cohort-specific and descriptive, and selection/survivor bias can dominate, warning agents not to overgeneralize. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when...', but it does convey limitations relevant to choosing this tool.

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