getRevenueGeographicSegmentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which indicate the tool is safe and idempotent. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds modest context about the output (breakdowns by region, contribution analysis, key markets). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness.

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 concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second explains the analytical value. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool has three parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description explains the general nature of the return value (revenue segmentation by geography, regional contribution, key markets). It is nearly complete for a read-only data tool, though more detail on the output structure (e.g., which fields are returned) would improve 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 input schema has 100% coverage, fully describing all three parameters (symbol, period, structure) with titles and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'detailed revenue breakdowns by geographic region' and helps 'analyze how different regions contribute to a company’s total revenue and identify key markets for growth.' It uses specific verbs ('access', 'analyze') and a clear resource ('Revenue Geographic Segments API'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling getRevenueProductSegmentation by specifying geographic focus.

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 implies usage for geographic revenue analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The sibling getRevenueProductSegmentation is present but no guidance is given on choosing between them.

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