get_income_by_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only safety profile ('Read-only report'). However, it says nothing about return format, pagination or ordering, permission requirements, or precisely what the breakdown contains, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the read-only/intent qualifier trailing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter, read-only analytic tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the grouping dimension, and the safety profile adequately. It leaves the exact shape of the report and its relationship to sibling financial reports unspecified, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents periodBucket. The description adds no meaning about the bucket's units, allowed values (there are no enums), or what the default view is, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the income/revenue breakdown') plus the grouping dimension ('by category/account'), which distinguishes it from the many search_* siblings. It does not name the obvious adjacent sibling get_expense_by_category or get_profit_and_loss, so differentiation is only implicit through the 'income/revenue' scope.

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?

'For understanding revenue sources' implies the use case but gives no when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no routing toward alternatives such as get_profit_and_loss or get_expense_by_category. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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