Get Account Health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; 'Check' plus the report list establishes it as a read-only inspection. It also discloses a genuinely non-obvious interpretive trait — that combined daily volume can exceed the ceiling even when each campaign looks fine — which is behavioral context an agent cannot recover from the schema or output schema. It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, and there is no explicit statement that nothing is mutated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the three short paragraphs have no filler. The middle paragraph re-enumerates output fields despite an output schema already existing, and the closing example, while valuable, is slightly expansive for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be described, yet the description usefully adds interpretation of the volume ceiling. For a single-param, read-only diagnostic tool this is close to sufficient; only alternative-tool routing and any access prerequisites are missing.

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% for the single account_id parameter. 'Check one account' signals singular scope and that the argument is an account identifier, but nothing addresses format, source, or how to obtain a valid value (e.g., via list_accounts). Minimal compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 ('Check') plus resource ('one account') plus an explicit enumeration of the reported fields (connection status, session refresh, cap/restriction, active campaign count, combined daily volume). Scope is stated as single-account, but the closest sibling (diagnose_campaign) is never named; the opening phrase 'conditions that stop a campaign working' even introduces campaign terminology, so an agent must infer the account-level vs campaign-level split.

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 clause 'conditions that stop a campaign working' implies the diagnostic use case (check before or when a campaign underperforms), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to get_account_budget or diagnose_campaign. Usage must be inferred.

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