novada_account_summary

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the description. The description adds valuable behavioral details: parallel execution of three internal tools, derived fields (expired/expires_at_human, unavailable_products), and the return structure (headline, sections, agent_instruction). No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, best-for scenarios, return structure, rationale for combining calls, and authentication. Every sentence adds necessary context, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, including the aggregated output format (headline, sections, agent_instruction) and the derived fields. It also covers authentication fallback. All necessary context for an agent to invoke and use the tool correctly is provided.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It implicitly conveys that no input is required. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool does with its implicit inputs (auth tokens).

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 it is a 'single-call account dashboard' that aggregates wallet, plan, and capture data. It explicitly answers the purpose: 'What's my Novada account status?' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like novada_wallet_balance and novada_plan_balance_all by combining them into one call with parallel execution.

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?

Provides explicit best-for scenarios ('What's my Novada account status?', 'How much do I have left?', 'one-shot health snapshot') and explains why it is better than making three separate calls (halves round-trip cost). Also mentions authentication requirements and fallback behavior.

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