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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds important context beyond them: the requirement for a connected payment provider, the paid-plan gate on transactions, the reporting currency, and the comparison against the previous window. It still does not discuss rate limits or transaction pagination behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 three tight sentences: metrics and currency first, show-mode behavior second, prerequisite and plan gate last. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the metrics, charge counts, prior-window comparison, and currency. It also covers the payment-provider prerequisite and paid-plan limitation. Minor gaps remain around transaction pagination and exact summary output shape, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the distinct return behavior of show=daily and show=transactions, which the enum alone does not convey.

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 the exact revenue metrics returned (gross, refunds, fees, net, charge counts, change vs previous window) in the site's reporting currency, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_overview or get_timeseries, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the show modes (daily for per-day net revenue, transactions for latest charges/refunds/disputes) and states prerequisites such as a connected payment provider and paid plan for transactions. It does not say when to choose this tool over sibling tools like get_overview or get_breakdown, leaving alternative selection implied.

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