sonar_app_revenue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning a confidence grade and methodology, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, data freshness, or whether the estimate is model-based. Gaps exist but no contradiction.

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 sentence plus a directive, efficiently conveying the core action and output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy ('always communicate') could be integrated, but overall no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (dollar estimate, confidence grade, factors, methodology). However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., apps with no data) or confidence interpretation. For a simple 3-param tool, it is mostly complete.

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%, with all three parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds no new meaning to the parameters; it only references external data sources (installs, ratings, benchmarks) not captured as parameters. 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 clearly states the verb 'estimate', the resource 'monthly revenue', and the basis (install counts, ratings, category benchmarks). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sonar_app_aso_score or sonar_app_keywords by focusing on revenue estimation and returns.

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 instructs to 'always communicate the confidence alongside the number', which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use sonar_app_revenue vs sonar_app_aso_score). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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