account_summary

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default filtering and valid status values, which is useful. However, it does not explain the account_ids parameter, any permission requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The output schema covers return format, but other behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. Well-structured and easy to scan.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the summary contains, the default filter, and how to change it. The only notable gap is the lack of explanation for account_ids, but this is a minor omission given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'status' parameter by listing allowed values ('archived', 'canceled', 'paused', 'all'). However, 'account_ids' is not explained, though its title ('Account Ids') and optional nature are somewhat self-evident. Partial compensation only.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a high-level summary of each sub-account's configuration'. It goes on to specify the content (status, number counts, source counts, active routing objects), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual resources or plain lists.

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 provides clear context about the default behavior (active sub-accounts only) and explicitly lists the status values to include other states. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the summary nature is self-evident relative to siblings like list_sub_accounts.

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