revenue_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool is an aggregate, read-only summary by naming computed metrics, which reasonably implies no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as scope, timezone handling, data freshness, or whether the summary is limited to certain charges.

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 definition is a single sentence with no filler, placing the resource first and then listing the key output components. It is immediately scannable and efficiently worded.

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 one-parameter aggregate tool, the description covers the main output components and the time window. However, it omits details such as the population scope, currency, failure-rate calculation, and any exclusions relative to sibling tools. Given no output schema or annotations, an agent would still have to infer some return shape and edge-case behavior.

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 only parameter, days, is referenced by 'N días', which correctly maps the parameter to the lookback window. The description does not explain the default of 7, the min/max bounds, or whether days are calendar days, although those constraints are already present in the schema. It adds a thin layer of meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the tool as a revenue summary for the last N days and lists the concrete metrics returned: total collected, refunded, and charge failure rate. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_recent_charges. The lack of an explicit verb keeps it from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_recent_charges, find_duplicate_charges, or get_customer. It only describes what the tool computes, not the conditions under which an aggregate revenue summary is preferred over a detailed charge list. The agent is left to infer the appropriate use case.

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