analytics_cohort

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

The description discloses the output type (matrix) and granularity (weekly/monthly), but nothing about how date_from and date_to affect the cohort, what the matrix rows/columns represent, or any data freshness or calculation behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 one-sentence description is compact and has no filler, so it earns credit for front-loading the core concept. However, it is not appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool because it omits essential semantic and usage context; this is underspecification rather than elegant concision.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the shape of the returned cohort matrix, the role of the date parameters, and how this relates to the sibling analytics tools. It only states 'weekly/monthly retention cohorts matrix', leaving the agent to infer almost all call-relevant behavior.

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%, and the description only mirrors the period enum by saying weekly/monthly. It provides no meaning for date_from or date_to, no format guidance, no mention that parameters are optional, and no explanation of how they bound the cohort matrix.

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 identifies the tool as producing a weekly/monthly retention cohort matrix, which conveys a clear resource and output focus. It is not a verb+resource construction, but 'Matriz cohortes retencion semanal/mensual' is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling analytics tools like analytics_rfm or analytics_churn_risk.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over the many analytics siblings, nor does it mention how the date parameters should be used or that all parameters are optional. It only implies that this is for retention cohort analysis, which is too weak for a clear usage rule.

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