get_account_anomalies

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

Discloses it compares prior period and returns spikes/drops. No annotations provided, but no contradictions. Does not mention data freshness, limits, or pagination.

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 concise with clear sections: purpose, requirement, args, examples. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple anomaly detection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and examples. Could add details about format of returned anomalies.

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 'Args' section explains the days_back parameter meaning and default behavior beyond the schema. With only one simple parameter, this is fully informative.

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 detects accounts with unusual spend changes and returns those that spiked or dropped. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_anomalies' by focusing on accounts, but does not explicitly contrast.

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 prerequisites (Team plan) and example questions. However, lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives like 'get_anomalies' for different granularity.

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