revenue_by_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the order status filter, the exact revenue formula using quantity times unit_price, the output shape, and pagination behavior. It omits explicit darting direction, though 'Rank' reasonably implies descending order.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and then covering inputs, filters, computation, return shape, and pagination in two more short sentences. Every sentence contributes essential information without filler.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this is nearly complete. It explains the join, the relevant for the filter, the exact aggregation, the return list structure of {category, revenue}, and pagination. The only real missing piece is an explicit ordering clause, but the word 'rank' likely covers it.

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 gives no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that `limit` defaults to 100 with a maximum of 1000 and that `offset` paginates, giving real semantic value beyond the raw schema. It could be more explicit that offset is the number of rows to skip, but it is largely sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rank product categories by revenue' and explicitly names the join path through orders -> order_items -> products. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like top_products (product-level) and revenue_by_year (time-based), even though it does not name them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does specify that only 'completed' and 'shipped' orders count, which is useful filtering context, but it does not tell the agent how to decide between this and closely-related alternatives such as revenue_by_year or top_products.

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