get_revenue_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. It does add genuine context by naming the upstream providers from which data is aggregated, but says nothing about network/credential requirements per provider, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the three output components in priority order, with no filler. The only wasted token is the redundant 'Read-only' tag at the end.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections (totals, trend vs previous period, transactions, MRR), which is the key thing an agent needs. It is thin only on edge cases — no note on which provider lacks which metrics (e.g., Shopify has no MRR) or on behavior with zero connections.

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% — every one of the four parameters has a documented purpose and default in the schema. The description only gestures at the feature set (MRR, transactions) that the includeMrr and includeTransactions flags control, adding little beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get revenue analytics' — and enumerates the payload: totals, period-over-period trend, recent transactions, and MRR from Stripe/RevenueCat/Shopify. That level of detail distinguishes it from the generic sibling get_analytics without naming it explicitly, which keeps it just 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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for revenue questions, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_analytics or what to do if no providers are connected. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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