get_royalties

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 implies a read operation by using 'Get', but it does not disclose whether it requires API key verification or other permissions, whether it aggregates data from multiple sources, or what the response format looks like. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about side effects or dependencies.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It has no wasted words and is easy to scan, though it could benefit from a brief note on the 'slug' parameter or return format without losing conciseness.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but misses critical context: what the summary includes (e.g., revenue breakdown), any prerequisites like a valid book slug, and how it differs from purchase-level data. An agent might call it with incorrect assumptions about the response format.

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 only parameter, 'slug', is documented in the schema only as a string type, with no description. The tool description mentions 'a book's' but does not clarify that 'slug' likely refers to the book's unique identifier. With low schema coverage (0%), the description should clarify that 'slug' is the book identifier, but it only implies it through context, so it partially compensates.

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 clear verb ('get') and resource ('book's sales and royalties summary'), and 'sales and royalties' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_book' and 'get_individual_purchases'. However, it does not explicitly explain why it differs from 'get_individual_purchases' or how the summary is aggregated, which would fully differentiate it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_individual_purchases' or 'get_book'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., book must exist, user must have access) or context clues for the agent to decide between this and similar read tools.

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