Get MRR at risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It discloses the output (MRR and alert counts by risk level) and positions it as a read-only snapshot, but does not cover any potential caveats, data freshness, or authorization requirements.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core output, the second adds context ('quick executive snapshot'). Every word earns its place.

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 without output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what is returned (total MRR and alert counts by risk level). However, it does not specify the data structure or format of the risk level breakdown, which could improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies as no value is missing.

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 states the tool returns 'Total monthly recurring revenue at risk plus active-alert counts by risk level' and positions it as an executive snapshot, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_at_risk_customers (customer-level) and get_active_alerts (alerts only).

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 use for a quick executive overview ('A quick executive snapshot') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_churn_metrics or get_at_risk_customers.

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