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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), which is confirmed and not contradicted. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the fact that revenue includes cash and vouchers that bypass the wallet ledger, and that below-minimum-reporting threshold amounts are never recorded — disclosure that helps the agent interpret results correctly rather than trust a misleadingly low wallet figure.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is minor redundancy (the cash/voucher channel enumeration appears both at the start and in the wallet explanation), but each sentence earns its place — the wallet-routing note is critical disambiguation. A tighter single-sentence pass could trim a few words without harming clarity.

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 3-parameter, 0-required tool with a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, all revenue channels, grouping dimensions, currency, the extra-print/AI-effect subcategory, and the wallet understatement edge case. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description doesn't need to re-document parameters. It reinforces the groupBy semantics by referencing grouping ('grouped by month or day and by currency') and adds the 'omzet' term that expands the query vocabulary the agent can map to this tool. No contradictions, and it doesn't over-repeat what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Business revenue from this operator's photobooth sessions') and enumerates the exact scope: every payment channel, grouping by month/day and currency, with extra-print and AI-effect revenue reported separately. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_wallet_transactions by explicitly flagging the wallet-vs-revenue distinction.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for any question about income, revenue or omzet') and an exclusion with rationale: it is the right tool when wallet earnings look too small because cash/voucher money never reaches the wallet ledger. This proactively prevents the most likely misrouting to get_wallet_transactions.

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