revenue_summary

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already signal that this tool is non-destructive and may return partial results. The description adds behavioral clarity by specifying that only paid invoices are included and that results are grouped, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (via cursor, page_size, returned_so_far) that the schema implies.

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 a single concise sentence that captures the core functionality without excess. It could be improved by front-loading the key filter ('paid') but it is already clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, grouping), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination mechanism (how cursor and returned_so_far work together), the meaning of 'totals' (are they per group or overall?), or the output format (no output schema). The annotations provide some safety context, but the description leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, so each parameter is already described in the schema (e.g., date_from/date_to as ISO 8601, cursor for pagination). The description doesn't add any new meaning to the parameters; it only mentions the date range implicitly via the tool's purpose. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Return') and the resource ('paid Jobber invoices'), and specifies the grouping ('by month and by quarter') and that totals are included. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'jobs_summary' or 'overdue_invoices', but the grouping detail helps differentiate it from a plain invoice list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jobs_summary' or 'overdue_invoices'. It only states what it returns, not the context in which it is appropriate. For example, it doesn't mention that it only covers paid invoices, which is a key differentiator from a general revenue report.

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