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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on edge cases or response shape, but the added auth context is valuable.

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 states the purpose, lists the main contents, and notes the auth requirement. Every part earns its place with no redundant 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description sufficiently explains what the summary contains and that authentication is required. It stops short of describing the exact structure of the returned summary, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool.

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% and the only parameter, sessionKey, is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but with the schema already handling this, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a comprehensive summary of the user's account') and enumerates the included areas (profile, balance, domain count, VPS count, pending transfers). This distinguishes it from overlapping sibling tools like getAccountBalance or getMyProfile by framing it as a single aggregated overview.

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 gives clear context for use: any time a broad account overview is needed rather than a single detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the enumerated summary contents make the intended use reasonably obvious.

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