account_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the snapshot contains (agents, numbers, webhook status, usage limits), which is important since no output schema exists to reveal the return shape.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the returned contents listed after the colon. No filler and no redundancy.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to know roughly what comes back. It stops short of noting relationships to the granular sibling tools, which would have made routing unambiguous.

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 clarify about arguments, and the schema is trivially complete.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a complete snapshot of your AgentPhone account') with an explicit enumeration of the contents (agents, phone numbers, webhook status, usage limits). This aggregate framing implicitly separates it from the many per-resource siblings (list_agents, list_numbers, get_usage), though it never names an alternative 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry-point/orientation call rather than a per-resource query, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the sibling tools that give finer-grained data.

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