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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., date-range scoping) but does not describe return format or pagination; the output schema exists but is not referenced. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and scope, achieving maximum 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 read-only tool with an output schema and detailed parameter schema, the description is minimal but not wholly inadequate. It omits usage guidance and fails to correct the misleading group_by schema description. Given the complexity and the presence of many sibling tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, with each parameter (start_date, end_date, group_by) having its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail. However, the group_by schema description is inconsistent—it describes values like 'source' and 'channel' that are not in the enum (which only allows 'country')—and the tool description does not clarify this. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get revenue broken down by country over a date range' clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools that focus on other metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with revenue-related siblings like get_pnl_summary.

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 alternatives. The sibling list includes numerous get_* tools, but the description offers no context on selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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