get_revenue_trend

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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'voir' (see), which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any limitations. There is no mention of output format or potential caveats, leaving a gap 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides usage guidance without any redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description gives a solid overview of purpose and usage. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the returned data looks like (e.g., time series, chart, list) to fully prepare the agent. This is a minor gap but keeps it at minimum viable.

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 schema already describes the single 'days' parameter clearly with a default and French description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'N jours' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 shows revenue evolution over the last N days ('Voir l'évolution du chiffre d'affaires sur les derniers N jours'). It identifies the resource (revenue trend) and the time dimension. While 'Voir' is a weak verb, the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_daily_sales or get_sales_period by focusing on trend evolution.

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 explicitly lists use cases: analyzing trends, identifying good/bad days, comparing weeks, and responding to user queries about 'how things are evolving'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it misses the top score.

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