get_revenue_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the aggregation scope and date-range behavior, but does not disclose details like currency, grouping granularity, or whether taxes/fees are included. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose and contains zero extraneous words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only summary tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it does not specify the shape of the returned summary or define what 'revenue' includes, which could leave some ambiguity given there is no output schema. Still, the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all three parameters (from, to, listingId). The description's mention of 'date range' and 'all or specific listings' maps to these parameters, adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'aggregated revenue summary' and clearly scopes it 'across all or specific listings for a date range.' This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_financials or get_owner_statements, even though alternatives are not named.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an aggregated revenue summary is needed over a date range, optionally filtered by listing. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide basic selection.

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