get_revenue_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers it thoroughly: read-only, stateless, idempotent, no side effects, authentication requirements, tier-based rate limits, structured error handling, and data-privacy guarantees. This goes well beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 repetitive: read-only/stateless behavior, rate limits, and authentication details appear multiple times across the 'Behavior' section and the 'Behavioral Transparency' bullets. The 'When to use' paragraph adds little and even describes a different kind of tool, so not 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?

Operationally, the description is strong: it explains side effects, auth, rate limits, error handling, and idempotency. However, there is no output schema, and the description never specifies the exact return shape or field types beyond naming the computed metrics, leaving a clear gap for an agent that needs to consume the result.

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 schema documents only an optional api_key parameter with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions that no auth is required for basic usage and that Pro tiers use a MEOK_API_KEY environment variable, but it never explains how the api_key parameter itself is used or what values it accepts.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate MRR, ARR, churn rate, and LTV from live Stripe data,' and enumerates the metrics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, cancel, or list Stripe objects, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 includes both 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, and the main body clearly implies use when revenue metrics are needed. However, the 'When to use' text is generic and poorly matched—'classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards' is not what this tool does—and no alternative sibling tools are named for comparison.

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