analytics_churn_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, any side effects, or limitations. The phrase 'clientes en riesgo churn' gives no behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise, a single short sentence, which is good for front-loading. However, conciseness is not a virtue when critical details are omitted. It earns credit for brevity but suffers from incomplete content.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not define what 'silencio' means operationally, what the return format is, or any usage constraints. An agent cannot confidently determine how to call this tool or interpret results from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'limit' or 'fields' mean in context, nor how they affect results. The schema itself provides constraints (default 20, max 100) but not semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters.

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 'Clientes en riesgo churn por silencio' clearly identifies the subject (customers at risk of churn due to silence) and the context. It distinguishes from siblings like analytics_rfm by focusing on churn risk from inactivity. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list', 'calculate'), relying on the tool name. Still clear enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus analytics_rfm, analytics_cohort, or others. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when this would be preferable. Agents must infer usage solely from the name and brief phrase.

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