get_accounts_overview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies read-only behavior. Additionally, it explicitly states that inaccessible/error accounts are indicated with an error field, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loading the core purpose and a notable behavior (error field). No extraneous information—every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description is largely complete. Minor missing details like exactly which performance metrics are summed are likely covered by the 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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (since, until, date_preset). The tool description adds no further parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a summary of accessible accounts with campaign counts and period performance totals, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_accounts (which likely only lists account identifiers) and get_stats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that for a simple list of accounts, list_accounts may be more appropriate, or that for detailed stats per campaign, get_stats or other tools should be used.

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