get_account_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the aggregate nature of the output and the scope ('every deal', 'every support ticket'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not modify data, or how errors/empty results are handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core value proposition and output contents are front-loaded, and the guidance about alternatives is concise and actionable. 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 no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing the expected return contents: profile, deals with stage/amount, and tickets with priority. For a one-parameter aggregation tool, this is largely sufficient, though it omits edge-case behavior such as missing contacts or pagination limits.

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 contactId already documented as 'HubSpot contact ID.' The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond that. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation fully, the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('a single account brief for a contact'), and enumerates exactly what it includes: profile, associated deals with stage and amount, and associated tickets with priority. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by naming the alternative chained calls, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool 'instead of chaining get_contact + search_deals + search_tickets when you want the full picture in one call.' This gives a concrete replacement scenario and names the alternative tools, leaving no ambiguity about when it should be selected.

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