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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific metrics returned, which is useful context but doesn't disclose any additional behavior such as rate limits, pagination, or time ranges. This meets the baseline with annotations present.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key stats without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It lists the major stats, though 'recent activity' is somewhat vague and could benefit from clarification. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description enriches the empty schema by listing the metrics included in the response, giving the agent expectations without needing parameter explanations.

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 shows account overview stats and enumerates specific metrics (total contacts, active campaigns, deals in pipeline, open rate, recent activity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_stats or get_deals_pipeline, which focus on a single area.

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 phrase 'account overview stats' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a high-level summary of account health is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is clear from the description and the tool's name.

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