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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 25,000-character cap, per-section total/returned/has_more reporting, omission of items 'too large to preview', and the privacy guarantee that 'SMS message content is never included'.

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?

Lead clause front-loads the purpose and every subsequent clause carries real value (counts, limits, privacy). It is a single very dense sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns itself, and it does so thoroughly: section structure, caps (10 line items, 5 newest), the list_tool escape hatch, and the character limit. Only parameter scoping is left thin.

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 only 50% and the description says nothing about either parameter. project_id is undocumented in both places, and the description does not compensate by explaining what project_id scopes or how it interacts with organization_id.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Summarize a workspace') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (wallet balance, usage totals, counts for agents/numbers/calls/SMS). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_* tools, which return complete record sets rather than a bounded 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?

It implies when to use this tool (a bounded summary) versus the list_tool 'that returns complete records', and notes that tool 'requires its own scope'. However, it never names the actual sibling tools or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition, leaving the routing to inference.

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