get_service_revenues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it declares the return shape (items, total, limit, skip, hasMore) and the pagination defaults and ceiling. It omits mention of the empty-result case and permissions, but for a straightforward read tool this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the operation and then the payload/pagination contract. No filler and no repetition beyond the useful limit restatement.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the response envelope, which is the key missing piece. Pagination and the required serviceId are covered; only edge cases like empty result sets are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of default 50 / max 200 and the skip/limit pairing restates schema content rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get revenue items for a service') and scopes it to a service, which implicitly separates it from sibling get_project_revenues. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 service scoping implies the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_project_revenues or search_services, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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