revenue_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or side effects. The phrase 'Honest numbers only' hints at some filtering logic (perhaps excluding pipeline estimates or unverified entries) but remains cryptic and unexplained. No information on rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format is provided.

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 appropriately brief with two distinct phrases. However, 'Honest numbers only' consumes space without adding actionable clarity—it reads as vague flavor text rather than functional documentation. The first clause efficiently describes scope (full dashboard, entries, totals, pipeline).

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the components retrieved (entries, totals, pipeline status). However, for a dashboard tool, it should clarify whether it returns raw data or aggregated summaries, and what 'pipeline status' encompasses (e.g., stages, probabilities). The coverage is minimal but sufficient given the schema simplicity.

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 tool accepts zero parameters. According to scoring guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since the schema is self-explanatory (empty object).

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 clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (revenue dashboard) along with scope (all entries, totals, pipeline status). However, it inadequately distinguishes from siblings like 'weekly_report' or 'crypto_portfolio' which might also contain revenue data. The 'Honest numbers only' qualifier does not clarify functional purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, date ranges) or indicate when to prefer 'update_revenue_status' or 'add_revenue_entry' instead. The phrase 'Honest numbers only' hints at a filter criterion but fails to guide selection logic.

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