get_mrr

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and discloses genuinely useful behavioral details: normalization of annual/weekly/daily subscriptions to monthly, discount application, and exclusion of trials. It stops short of stating data freshness, auth requirements, or whether the call hits Stripe live, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences that are dense and front-loaded: the computation is stated first, then the normalization/eligibility rules, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the computation rules and names the returned values (total MRR, subscription count, status breakdown), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It would be complete with a note on data freshness or the live-vs-cached source.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to guide argument passing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compute ... MRR') and narrows the scope precisely to 'current MRR from active Stripe subscriptions'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_mrr_movement, which an agent could easily confuse for a time-series view of the same metric.

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 explains what is computed but never states when to call this tool versus get_mrr_movement, get_revenue_by_plan, or get_subscriber_stats. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing guidance are offered, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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