analyze_revenue_concentration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool calculates and reports metrics rather than mutating data, and it adds interpretive context by explaining that high HHI signals single-customer dependency risk. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe output formatting, but the analysis-oriented language makes the non-destructive nature sufficiently clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the analysis type, the second lists concrete outputs, and the third supplies interpretation guidance. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no required parameters, the description covers the key outputs and the meaning of HHI, which is enough to invoke the tool confidently. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining whether the 'top N' is configurable or what the exact response shape looks like, but the lack of required parameters and clear analytical intent make this a minor gap.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and default values at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it adds no value beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 as revenue concentration/Pareto analysis and lists the specific computations it performs (top-N revenue share, HHI, and 80% revenue customer count). This differentiates it from siblings like analyze_vendor_concentration by focusing on revenue, and from get_top_customers by providing concentration metrics rather than a simple customer list.

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 implies the tool is for assessing customer dependency risk via HHI, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as analyze_vendor_concentration or get_top_customers. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or direct comparisons to siblings, leaving the selection context mostly implicit.

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