revenue_recognition__over_time_revenue

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it provides no information about side effects, prerequisites, data sources, or return behavior. The tool could perform a calculation or modify data, but the description gives no clues.

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 short but sacrifices all informational value. Conciseness is about efficiency, not omission; here, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential purpose or usage.

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 calculation tool with 3 required inputs and no output schema, the description is completely incomplete. It does not explain the calculation logic (e.g., revenue recognition over time using percentage of completion), expected outputs, or how the parameters interplay.

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?

There are 3 required parameters (allocated, months_elapsed, total_months) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters—it does not explain their units, expected ranges, or how they relate to the tool's purpose. This makes it impossible for an AI agent to correctly populate them.

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 '[revenue-recognition] over_time_revenue' is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It does not specify any verb or resource purpose, leaving the tool's function completely unclear.

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 usage guidelines are provided. Sibling tools like 'revenue_recognition__allocate_transaction_price' or 'revenue_recognition__contract_liability' exist, but the description offers no differentiation or context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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