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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is 'read-only' and requires host authorization, and details the output (net in cents, per-tier breakdown, etc.), providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a comprehensive list of return data. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and annotation coverage, the description adequately explains the outputs. An explicit mention of the return format or an example would push it higher, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter 'event_id' has 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description only says 'Requires event_id' without explaining its meaning or format. More context would be helpful for correct usage.

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 the tool gets a live event's revenue data, listing specific components like net actually paid, tickets sold, per-tier breakdown, and affiliate revenue. It distinguishes itself by referencing the 'Revenue & Payouts page' and enumerating output fields, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 specifies the required 'event_id' parameter and a precondition ('you must be a host'). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'list_ticket_sales' or 'get_share_links', but the context is clear enough for usage.

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