Get revenue summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about time range (all-time vs. monthly), auth or permission requirements, or any scoping/rate constraints for a summary that presumably aggregates financial data.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is more of a content enumeration than a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does sketch the shape (tier cost, count, revenue). However, it omits the time dimension the numbers cover and any note on aggregation scope, which matters for a revenue query and leaves the agent guessing about what period the figures represent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'publication' parameter is documented in the schema, including loose hostname matching and the first-publication default. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the resource (revenue and subscription plans) and enumerates what the result contains: tier price, subscriber count per tier, and revenue. That is clear enough to distinguish it from general listing tools, but it never differentiates itself from other analytics siblings such as get_analytics, get_dashboard_summary, or get_email_stats.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_analytics or get_dashboard_summary, and no note about the default publication behavior. The agent must infer applicability purely from the name and sibling list.

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