get_category_revenue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the non-cancelled filter, revenue-based ranking, and the limit constraint of 1-100, which adds useful behavior. However, it does not describe the output format, the ranking direction explicitly, or default behavior when date ranges are omitted.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of parameter notes. Zero wasted words, and every phrase earns its place - scope, filter, metric, and input constraints are all covered efficiently.

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?

Adequate for invocation - purpose, filter, and parameter constraints are all present. But with no output schema and no annotations, the return format and the meaning of 'ranked' (list of categories with revenue values, directional order, handling of omitted dates) are left to inference, which is a real gap for a short tool description.

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 is effectively empty (0 properties, additionalProperties: true), so the description is the only documentation of parameters. It names from/to date parameters with YYYY-MM-DD format and the limit with a 1-100 integer range, fully compensating for the bare schema. It could clarify that limit caps the number of returned categories, but it noticeably exceeds the schema's contribution.

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 and resource ('Rank non-cancelled categories by EUR revenue'), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_revenue_by_period (time-based) and get_product_sales (product-based). The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to differentiate itself.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this is for revenue ranking by category, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over get_revenue_by_period or get_product_sales, nor any exclusion criteria. The scope ('non-cancelled', 'EUR') gives some context but no alternative routing.

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