get_revenue_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only retrieval through the verb 'Get' but does not state anything about permissions, rate limits, whether data is aggregated, what happens with required vs. optional parameters, or what the response looks like.

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 a single short phrase that is front-loaded but severely under-specified for a tool with nine parameters, nested objects, and three enums. Brevity here comes at the cost of necessary context rather than through efficient communication.

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 nine parameters, five required fields, a nested filters object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to inform correct invocation. An agent lacks guidance on required inputs, dimension semantics, return behavior, or how this differs from related revenue tools.

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 only 11%, and only the nested 'filters' property has a schema description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it alludes to a 'dimension' but does not explain the 'type' enum values (country, region, referrer, channel), required fields (websiteId, startAt, endAt, currency, type), or the behavior of 'unit', 'compare', 'timezone', or 'filters'.

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 states a verb ('Get') and resource ('revenue metrics') and adds a qualifier ('by dimension'), so the general purpose is clear. However, siblings such as get_revenue_stats, get_revenue_chart, and get_revenue_sessions are not differentiated, leaving an agent unsure why this tool exists instead of its close siblings.

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 versus get_revenue_stats, get_revenue_chart, or get_revenue_sessions. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about appropriate scenarios.

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