recogniseRevenue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavior: the host handles user confirmation. However, it omits other important traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what data is affected, or any rate limits. The added context is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial behavioral instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of revenue recognition (no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the core action and the confirmation behavior but lacks details on return values, side effects, or post-conditions. For a potentially destructive financial action, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: 'up to a specified end_date' simply echoes the parameter description. No additional details about the internal '__userContext' object or its properties are provided.

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 action ('Recognize revenue') and its scope ('for the organization up to a specified end_date'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'refreshRevenuePostings' or 'listRevenuePostings'.

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 a critical guideline: 'do NOT ask the user to re-confirm before calling' because the host enforces confirmation via the approval gate. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'refreshRevenuePostings', nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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