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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes real value by disclosing the fallback behavior (returning a ten-year history answer with gaps and per-year source URLs when no in-window history exists) and that moderation status is included. It does not say whether results are paginated, ordered, or how large the result can get, so it stops short of a 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, no filler. The second sentence is dense and leans on internal jargon ('the standard ten-year revenue history answer'), which costs a point but does not obscure the core use.

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 burden of describing return values, and it does name the notable ones: moderation status, sources, reported years, gaps, per-year source URLs, and the profile figure/period/sources. Missing are result ordering, pagination, and error behavior for non-owned listings.

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% and the single `listing` parameter is documented with four accepted forms plus a recommendation (slug is best). The description adds only the ownership qualifier, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List published and pending revenue records for a listing you own,' and adds what fields come back (moderation status, sources). That is enough to separate it from the write-side sibling manage_my_revenue, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 implies a prerequisite by scoping to 'a listing you own,' and the schema repeats that a listing identifier is required. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus manage_my_revenue, no mention of what happens if the caller does not own the listing, and no guidance on the ten-year-history fallback triggering conditions beyond 'when no in-window history exists.'

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