get_revenue_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behaviors such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. It only specifies that it returns revenue composition, which is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavioral profile.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second provides crucial parameter mapping. There is no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should be richer. It does not mention return format, error handling, data limits, or whether the breakdown is for a single period or multiple. This leaves significant gaps for an agent using the tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for financial_type (7=年报, 9=聚合季报). This maps the integer to financial report types, adding value beyond the schema. However, code and currency_code remain undocumented, so description only partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves revenue composition by product, industry, region, or business. It provides the verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'revenue breakdown', and includes multilingual translations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_financial_statements.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable contexts, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the mapping for financial_type, but it does not help decide between this and other similar tools.

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