revenue_attribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of the time window applied, whether results are aggregated or per-source rows, or any limits on the breakdown. It only hints at shape by naming the metrics.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. However, it is a trailing fragment without a leading verb or purpose statement, so it is not front-loaded with what an agent most needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out — yet the description spends its whole budget naming outputs anyway. It omits purpose, usage context, and the semantics of its single input, leaving the definition thin for even a one-parameter analytics tool.

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?

There is one parameter (`days`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions a time window or its default. With only one parameter the burden for documenting it falls to the description, and it fails to do so.

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 is a noun list of outputs (revenue total, transactions, revenue-per-visitor, traffic-source breakdown) rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. It is inferable that this returns revenue analytics, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like breakdown or query_metrics, which also produce breakdowns.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus breakdown, query_metrics, retention_report, or goal_report. The only implicit signal is that it is revenue-themed. An agent must guess which sibling to call.

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