get_revenue

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the meaning of the connected=false and measured=false flags, the data provenance ('Nothing here is estimated'), and the exact upstream sources. It omits any pagination or freshness/staleness note, keeping it from 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?

Front-loads the core purpose ('Revenue and downloads for one app...') then layers the source list and flag semantics. Dense but each clause earns its place; slightly long in the source enumeration but no filler sentences.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (per-country units, installs, MRR, 28-day revenue, subscriptions, trials, movement breakdown) and how to read its false flags. It stops short of describing temporal coverage per source or any rate/caching behavior, but is otherwise sufficient to call it correctly.

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%, so both appId and days (1–365, default 90) are fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the light implication of 'daily' series and 'one app' without new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource with exact scope: revenue and downloads for one app, broken down by named sources (App Store Connect units, Google Play installs, RevenueCat MRR/subscriptions/trials). This clearly separates it from subscription-only tools like get_subscription_events and portfolio-wide ones like get_portfolio_overview, though it never names a sibling explicitly to force the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by scope ('one app', 'sources the user connected') rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. when to prefer get_portfolio_overview or get_subscription_events). The connected=false / measured=false notes describe output states, not invocation guidance.

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