analytics_rfm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only names the segmentation concept and does not state whether the tool computes a report, writes data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 short and contains no filler, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with parameters and no schema descriptions, so the brevity reads more as incompleteness than as well-structured conciseness.

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?

For a tool with three unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It provides the high-level topic but omits parameter semantics, expected output, and usage context.

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 mentions none of the three parameters: fields, date_to, or date_from. There is no guidance on how to express date ranges or what 'fields' should contain, so an agent cannot reliably fill in the parameters from this description.

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's subject as RFM segmentation by recency, frequency, and value, which makes the basic intent clear. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a concrete action statement, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling analytics tools such as analytics_cohort 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many other analytics tools. The only implied usage is 'when you need RFM segmentation,' which is not enough to choose between this and related analytics siblings.

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