Builders all-time summary by category

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape (headline totals, per-category breakdown with builder counts, per-builder list with paging). It does not cover rate limits or data freshness, so it is not a 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 sentence that front-loads the headline totals and then the per-category and per-builder detail. It is efficient and complete, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than a short multi-sentence version.

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?

For a read-only, three-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both the aggregates returned and the paging behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits any guidance on data freshness or category semantics but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by stating that the per-builder list is paged with limit/offset and that the default is 50 — a default the schema itself only calls 'default per tool'. The fields parameter is not explained in the description, keeping this from a 5.

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 precisely states the resource and scope: all-time builder headline totals (revenue, volume, users, avg revenue/user), overall and per category, plus the per-builder list. The 'all-time' framing implicitly distinguishes it from sibling time-series tools like builders_daily_revenue, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'all-time' scope and 'headline totals' wording. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing among the many sibling builder tools (leaderboard, daily revenue, dashboard, user series), leaving the agent to infer selection.

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