app_analysis_retention

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a critical constraint (quarterly requires end_date) beyond what the schema implies, but it does not describe return format, read-only nature, or any other behaviors. The warning is useful but limited.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, and the warning uses clear formatting with an emoji to draw attention.

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 simple parameter set and rich schema, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of response structure or output semantics. The critical quarterly/end_date constraint is covered, but the tool's overall behavior is not fully described. No output schema exists, so this gap is noticeable.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a helpful emphasis on the date_granularity and end_date relationship, but it largely repeats the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves retention analysis data for apps, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('retention analysis data'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_usage_active_users or app_analysis_demographics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 important usage guidance about the date_granularity parameter and the requirement for end_date when using quarterly, which helps correct invocation. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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