Get revenue summary

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries less burden. It adds the output scope (tier costs, counts, revenue) but not additional behavioral context such as time range, permissions, or aggregation details.

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 compact phrase that front-loads the topic and enumerates the three data points returned. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase structure is slightly less informative than a verb-led sentence.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description specifies what the summary contains (tier costs, counts, revenue) and annotations cover safety. It could be improved by noting the per-publication scope and pointing to sibling analytics tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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, publication, is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The description's mention of revenue and subscription plans adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 subject: revenue and subscription plan tiers, including cost, subscriber count per tier, and revenue. Although it lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from analytics siblings, the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives like get_analytics, get_dashboard_summary, or get_subscriber_count. The description neither states a use case nor names alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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