Revenue report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the read-only nature. The description adds useful scope details (completed vs. confirmed upcoming bookings) and currency (USD), but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, timezone handling, or error behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, compact sentence that packs in the core purpose, grouping options, and all included metrics without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys the report's scope. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists all key metrics and grouping options, providing a comprehensive picture of the report's content. It does not mention output format or potential edge cases, but for a read-only reporting tool this is a reasonably complete specification.

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 schema covers from/to with date format descriptions, but group_by has only an enum and no description. The description clarifies that grouping can be by service, staff, or day, directly mapping to the enum values. It also clarifies that the date range refers to booking dates, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. Since schema coverage is 67%, the description compensates well for the undocumented group_by parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a revenue report for completed bookings, specifying the grouping options (service, staff, day) and the metrics returned (totals, average ticket, no-show rate, cancellations, confirmed upcoming value). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_bookings which focus on individual records, so an agent can easily differentiate.

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 its use for revenue aggregation and analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as list_bookings for raw data or search_customers for customer details. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the description and sibling names.

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