gatekeeper_revenue_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest context about what data the report contains (current month, previous month, monthly breakdown) but does not disclose further behavioral details such as data scoping, currency, or what 'open world' hints imply. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core output summary before parameter defaults. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has zero required parameters and strong safety annotations, a minimal read-only report description can be viable. However, the ambiguity around period and months, plus the lack of an output schema, leaves gaps for an agent trying to customize the report correctly. It is adequate for a default invocation but incomplete for parameter-aware use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'period (default month)' and 'months (default 6)', which restates defaults rather than explaining what values period accepts or what months actually controls (e.g., how many months to include in the breakdown). An agent cannot confidently know valid period formats or the exact meaning of months from this description.

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's purpose as a Gatekeeper revenue summary, listing specific outputs: total this month, last month, and monthly breakdown. It does not contain an explicit verb, and it does not differentiate itself from related gatekeeper tools such as gatekeeper_list_payments, but the resource and metrics are unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gatekeeper_list_payments, gatekeeper_list_overdue, or other gatekeeper reporting tools. The description states defaults but does not mention use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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