get_revenue_breakdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the tool's grouping and period parameters. It does not mention that results are limited to top N, whether revenue is summed/sorted, how custom date ranges behave, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the function name.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and key grouping dimensions, with no redundant or filler wording. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The description is too sparse for a reporting tool with 5 parameters, a custom-period workflow, and multiple closely related siblings. It does not explain the output shape, the top-N limiting behavior, when custom start/end dates are needed, or how to choose among sibling sales/revenue tools. The full behavior is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It does align 'product, vendor, or product type' with the dimension enum, but it does not clarify custom-date requirements or the top-results behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific action ('break down'), a resource ('revenue'), and the grouping dimensions (product, vendor, product type), which clearly communicates the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_sales_summary or get_sales_comparison, but the dimension-focused wording is distinctive enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sales_comparison, get_product_performance, or get_sales_summary. The description implies the use case for revenue breakdowns, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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