get_platform_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the Proof account requirement, the need to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server, and that the hitl_channels sub-object requires hitl:read scope. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but 'snapshot' implies it, and the access constraints add meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a dense but clear list of contents, followed by a short contextual line and a compact access block. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the first sentence is long.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, access prerequisites, and a scope requirement. It doesn't describe exact output field names or error behavior, but the listed contents are enough for an agent to decide and call.

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 a single optional environment enum. The description doesn't elaborate on the parameter, but the schema fully documents it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a one-call account snapshot') and enumerates the exact contents: quota with projection, request health, per-channel completion, HITL counts, and active API key count. The phrase 'same data the dashboard home renders' contextualizes the scope, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for differentiation.

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?

It positions the tool as the consolidated one-call snapshot versus more granular tools, and the access note clarifies that start_login does NOT open this tool and that PROOF_API_KEY must be set. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer a sibling, but context is clear.

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