One builder's revenue over any date range (e.g. last 45 days)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: end dates are clamped to yesterday, future starts error, ambiguous names return candidate lists, results are cross-checked against the dashboard series, and rows come newest first. It stops short of describing pagination or rate-limit behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and its scope before the parameter rules. Nearly every clause carries information (defaults, clamps, error cases, data source, ordering), though the packed phrasing borders on overload.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description responsibly describes the return shape (total plus daily rows, newest first) and the upstream source. It omits list-control semantics (limit/offset/fields) and the cross-check output fields, but those are secondary for calling the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value on `builder` (0x address preferred, id: or name, ambiguity resolution) and reinforces the `days` default/ending rules. The list-control params (limit, offset, fields) are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: total and daily revenue (USD) of ONE builder over any range. The explicit 'ONE builder' scope distinguishes it from sibling aggregate tools like flowscan_builders_leaderboard and flowscan_builders_daily_revenue without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear input-selection guidance: use `days` (complete UTC days ending yesterday, default 30) or startDate/endDate, and notes future starts error. It also tells the agent to ask the user when a name is ambiguous. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as flowscan_builder_dashboard or flowscan_builders_user_series.

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