revenue_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool performs a read-only analysis (checks) without mentioning destructive actionscars. It also specifies the output (score 1-10, suggested path), which is helpful. It doesn't note any auth requirements or side effects, but as an analysis tool, it's reasonably transparent. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether it alters anything, but 'analyze' and 'checks' imply read-only, so it's acceptable.

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?

Concise, two sentences: purpose and output. No fluff. Clear structure.

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?

It lacks info about when to use vs alternatives, no exclusions. Given many sibling tools (deployment_map, check_health), it doesn't distinguish. But it does state specific scope. However, no mention of required context like whether project must be deployed first or what happens if not ready. Also no mention of auth or rate limits. Slightly incomplete.

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?

No input schema is provided, so the description must describe parameters. It says 'a project' but doesn't specify what identifies the project (ID? URL?). The description lists what it analyzes (auth, payments, etc.) but not how to supply the project reference. With no schema, the agent has no parameter details. So 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze'), a concrete resource ('a project's monetization readiness'), enumerates the exact areas checked (auth, payments, landing page, deployment, API, README), and states the output (a 1-10 score and suggested path). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_overview or check_health.

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 implies use when evaluating a project's monetization readiness)Skip but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools such as find_opportunities or suggest_actions. The scope is clear enough that an agent can infer the context, but no explicit guidance is given.

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