get_net_revenue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by explaining that fiscal=true includes fiscal corrections and matches Yuki fiscal reports. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any access requirements, or describe the return structure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and object, adds the key optional flag, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

The description covers the core function and the fiscal nuance, but given that there is no output schema, it does not explain the return format or any edge-case behavior. It also lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools. For a simple revenue getter, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the fiscal parameter with the context 'matches Yuki fiscal reports', which is extra value. Other parameters are adequately covered by the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('net revenue (netto-omzet)') with clear scope ('for an administration within a date range'). This clearly distinguishes it from all 31 sibling tools, none of which target revenue.

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 implies use for net revenue queries with an optional fiscal flag, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The fiscal flag explanation is more of a parameter detail than a usage guideline.

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