get_indie_revenue_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions what the dashboard contains but does not explain caching behavior (despite a cache parameter), data freshness, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, short sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and includes what the user can view.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of outputs (revenue statistics, top categories, success stories) but lacks details on time periods, aggregation level, or data freshness. For a dashboard tool, more specific context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter 'use_cache', which has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it gets an aggregated dashboard from Indie Hackers and TrustMRR, offering revenue statistics, top categories, and success stories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_indiehackers_income_reports (individual reports) and get_trustmrr_rankings (just rankings).

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 this tool is for an aggregated view, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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