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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: that FREE businesses are blocked regardless of feature rows, and that access must be verified. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary procedural instructions. It could be slightly tightened, but each sentence adds value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return data structure beyond 'revenue summary data'. Combined with missing parameter semantics, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters (communityId, startDate, endDate, duration). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or their expected formats, leaving the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states it retrieves revenue summary data for a community, and clarifies that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_community_analytics or get_community_referral_reward_summary, which could cause ambiguity.

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 provides excellent usage guidelines: it requires checking business permissions, notes that FREE businesses cannot use it, instructs to call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and mandates showing grace-period warnings and resubscribe links. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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