get_revenue_mix

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

The description discloses that the tool returns both latest and historical data, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. Without annotations, this leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences totaling 14 words without any fluff. Every word adds value, clearly stating the action, resource, and output format.

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?

Adequately covers basic functionality and return content (latest breakdown + historical trend) but lacks details on error cases, data format, or handling of missing segments. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has one required string parameter 'slug' with no description. The tool description does not clarify what 'slug' represents (likely a company identifier), nor does it provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves revenue/segment mix breakdowns for a company, specifying it returns the latest percentage breakdown and full historical trend per segment. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_financials and get_operational_metrics, which cover broader financial or operational data.

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. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is appropriate, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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