get_revenue_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format ('JSON string with current MRR, growth rate, historical data, monthly projections, and projected ARR') and parameter defaults. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'get' prefix and return-focused description imply safe behavior. Adding an explicit 'does not modify data' statement would make it a 5.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown but indicated as present). The description explains the return contents and parameter options, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'app_id: Filter by app (optional)' and 'forecast_months: How many months to project (default 6).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

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's purpose: 'Project future MRR for the next 3-6 months.' This uses a specific verb ('project') and resource ('future MRR'), and the time horizon distinguishes it from siblings like get_revenue_summary or get_mrr_movement.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when future MRR projections are needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios. It implies usage without exclusions, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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