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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description earns credit by disclosing the response's contents in the absence of an output schema, telling the agent the payload is a multi-section aggregate rather than a list. It does not mention auth/scope requirements, which keeps it below 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the payload enumerated as a clean parallel list. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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, zero-arg aggregate with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields is the critical content and it is fully present. The remaining gap is that the description never says this is the entry point before drilling into siblings, which matters given the crowded sibling set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 names a specific resource (this Xyla shop) and a clear action (summarises), then enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains — plan, credits, autopilot state, pending approvals, next posts, broken accounts. That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like pending_approvals or upcoming_posts, but the differentiation is never stated outright.

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 the word 'overview' — an agent can infer this is a dashboard-style first call — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that specific siblings (pending_approvals, upcoming_posts, get_settings) should be preferred once the overview points at a problem area.

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