Get total revenue for a period

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cancellation exclusion, zero-revenue success behavior, half-open interval semantics, date format, optionality of each bound, and the rejection condition when 'from' is not strictly before 'to'. This is exceptionally transparent for an unannotated tool.

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, well-structured paragraph: the core action leads, followed by exclusions, edge-case behavior, interval semantics, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting of dates and bounds is precise without fluff.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers parameter semantics, behavioral edge cases, and a concrete use case. It omits nothing needed to call the tool correctly. The return value (a sum) is implicitly numeric, so no further clarification is required.

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 0%; both parameters are just strings with no description. The description fully explains that both are 'YYYY-MM-DD' dates, optional, define a half-open interval, and that 'from' must precede 'to'. This adds all needed meaning, going far beyond the bare schema.

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 action: 'Sums revenue (quantity * unit_price) across all orders in the requested period', with specifics on exclusions and interval semantics. It is distinct from siblings like 'get_top_customers_by_spend' or 'get_top_selling_products', all of which target different aggregates. The resource is unambiguous and the verb 'sums' is precise.

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 a concrete example ('Use this to answer "how much revenue did we generate in 2025?"') and explains when the tool applies (with or without bounds). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given sibling scope, no overlapping tool exists. This is clear usage context without exclusions.

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