List accounts at risk of churning

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default threshold behavior, the inclusive band semantics, and descending sort order, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result volume, which matters for a list endpoint with a limit parameter.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope/defaults first, use case second, follow-up routing third. Front-loaded with the most important information and free of filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, defaults, sorting, and the natural follow-up tool. The only gap is that no annotations exist to cover safety/permission characteristics and the description does not compensate for them.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that a 'watch' minimum band therefore includes BOTH 'watch' and 'at_risk' accounts, clarifying the ordering semantics of the enum that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (customer accounts) narrowed by a computed churn-risk band threshold, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_accounts that has no risk filter. The default behavior and sort order are stated up front.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('fastest way to answer which accounts are at risk this week?') and routes the agent to get_account_risk_summary when it needs score reasoning. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_accounts or get_account_details, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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