Get Campaign Revenue

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so safety is covered. The description earns credit for adding that only 'finalized' revenue is returned within a bounded window, which tells the agent results may be incomplete for recent dates. But it says nothing about pagination limits, currency conversion behavior, or what 'opt-in' details actually cost (latency, limits).

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the opt-in caveat immediately after. Nothing to trim; only shortcoming is that the brevity leaves gaps noted elsewhere.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this description is thinner than ideal — it omits return shape, pagination semantics, and the meaning of most optional flags. It does convey scope (bounded, finalized, by provider and native currency), which is the essential framing, but not enough for confident invocation of optional parameters.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It vaguely gestures at 'products are opt-in' (plausibly include_products/product_limit/product_offset) and 'details' (unclear whether that means include_points), but never explains product_limit/product_offset pagination or what include_points adds. An agent must guess at nearly every optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read ... campaign revenue') with meaningful qualifiers that separate it from sibling analytics tools like get_campaign_performance: 'bounded' (date-range scoped) and 'finalized' (settled vs. estimated) revenue, reported 'by provider and native currency'. The direction is clear, though it never names which sibling it differs from.

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?

'Details and products are opt-in' gives a hint that extra payloads must be requested, but it doesn't say when an agent should pull revenue here versus via get_campaign_performance, nor any prerequisites (e.g., revenue availability/finalization timing). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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