get_revenue_by_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but this is a simple read-only analytics query with no parameters. It usefully discloses the return shape (per-plan rows with subscriber count, MRR contribution, and percentage of total), though it says nothing about permissions, time range defaults, or currency assumptions.

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 tight sentences: the first names the operation and scope, the second describes exactly what comes back. Every clause earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 present, describing the returned columns is genuinely valuable and it does so. Since there are no parameters and no annotations, the only remaining gap is any hint about the reporting period or data freshness, which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema semantics to add to; the baseline for parameter-free tools applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty input 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?

States a specific verb ('Break down') and resource ('MRR by pricing plan/product'), making it clearly distinct in function from get_mrr or get_subscriber_stats. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries, so it lands just under the top tier.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the seven sibling analytics tools. The usage context is only inferable from the purpose statement itself.

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