get_revenue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), or response format. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks additional structure or details that could enhance clarity, keeping it simple yet under-specified.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is inadequate for a data retrieval tool with pagination parameters.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description 'Retrieve revenue records' adds no semantic information about these parameters, such as how they control pagination or data retrieval. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 'Retrieve revenue records' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (revenue records), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all records, filtered, aggregated) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_sales' or 'get_invoices', which might retrieve related financial data. This makes it minimally adequate but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_sales' and 'get_invoices' that might handle similar financial data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, relying solely on the tool name.

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