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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 model, per-format pricing, that unpaid calls return a free preview and exact terms, and that nothing is charged without a signed payment. It also provides a free 10-row preview link, which is substantial behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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 content is front-loaded with the return payload, then pricing, then payment safety, then preview — a logical order. It is dense with parenthetical clauses, but each sentence carries distinct, necessary information about a paid tool; only minor tightening would help.

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, the description usefully sketches return fields (as-of date, source_url, dated readings) and pricing, so an agent knows what it gets. For a 2-param read-only export, this is nearly complete; the only minor gap is not clarifying whether a per-row or per-slug charge applies to repeated calls (idempotency is annotated, so acceptable).

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?

The schema documents slug but not format, so 50% coverage leaves format undocumented structurally; the description fills that gap by pricing each format and noting slug scopes to a single business at the same price. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not restate slug's 'tracker businesses only' constraint explicitly (that remains in the schema).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the Reported AI Revenue Tracker in one call') and immediately qualifies the dataset's provenance ('figures all come from press coverage, company announcements or filings... reported, not payment-verified'). That distinction clearly separates this export from the business/category/growth lookup siblings, which return individual records rather than a full reported-figures dataset.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: choose format csv or jsonl, optionally scope to one business via slug, and an unpaid call yields a free preview plus exact terms. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_business or search_businesses, but the export-vs-lookup framing is clear from the content described.

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