revenue_attribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the metric list — nothing about the time window semantics, aggregation behavior, or auth requirements. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler — it is efficiently sized. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which slightly undercuts clarity, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 enumerating return values is largely redundant rather than additive. Given that, the description should carry the usage and parameter guidance, which it omits entirely: no time-range explanation for 'days', no sibling disambiguation. For a metrics tool among heavy metric siblings, it is under-described.

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 0% and the single parameter 'days' (default 30) is never mentioned in the description. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it instead says nothing about the time window, its default, or allowable ranges. The parameter's meaning is left entirely to the bare 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?

The description names the resource and enumerates its outputs (revenue total, transactions, revenue-per-visitor, traffic-source breakdown), so an agent can infer it returns revenue attribution metrics. However, there is no verb (compute/return/report) and no differentiation from siblings like breakdown or query_metrics, which likely also produce metric aggregations. Purpose 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings such as breakdown, query_metrics, compare, and goal_report that plausibly overlap with revenue analysis, the agent has nothing to disambiguate when this tool is the right pick.

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