Get revenue metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, namely that omitting `metric` returns a fixed overview card set while supplying it returns daily history over `days` days.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The two-mode structure is front-loaded and immediately usable by an agent deciding whether to pass `metric`.

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 rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what both return modes look like. It does not discuss project/environment scoping or error cases, but those are handled by the schema and are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between `metric` and the returned data shape, making the conditional parameter behavior clearer than the per-parameter schema text alone.

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 what the tool returns in two distinct modes: an overview card set when `metric` is omitted, and a daily history for the named metric when it is provided. The resource (revenue metrics) and the branch condition are unambiguous, though the action verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

It explains the internal conditional usage of the `metric` parameter ('Without metric... With metric...'), but gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus other sibling tools such as get-project-health or list-transactions. Usage is implied for anyone already looking for revenue metrics, but there is no explicit context or exclusion.

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