get_platform_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the hitl_channels sub-object requires the hitl:read scope, and the tool requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured plus a server restart. These auth/scope prerequisites are exactly the kind of context that prevents failed invocations.

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?

Front-loads the valuable content (what the snapshot contains) in the first sentence and keeps the rest short. The ACCESS block is slightly verbose and arguably belongs in server documentation, but it is materially useful and does not obscure the main purpose.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data, and it covers the auth/scope prerequisites an agent needs before calling. For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only a note on pagination or freshness is absent, and neither appears relevant here.

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% and the single 'environment' parameter is fully documented in-schema (enum plus default). The description never mentions 'environment', so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a one-call account snapshot') and then enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: quota projection, request health, per-channel completion rates, HITL counts, API key count. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_usage, get_subscription, or get_current_user without opening any schema.

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 clear context ('the same data the dashboard home renders') that tells the agent when this aggregate view is appropriate, and explicitly excludes a tempting but wrong path ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It stops short of naming an alternative aggregate tool, but the routing guidance is solid.

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