get_top_spending_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only (show/highlight) and requires a specific plan, but does not mention rate limits, response format, or whether it covers the entire org. This is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for requirement, then parameter list and examples. It is well-structured with front-loaded information, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and parameters well but omits the return format. It does not specify what fields are returned (e.g., account IDs, names, spend amounts). The examples hint at output but lack explicit details.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'limit: Number of top accounts to return (default 10)' and 'days_back: Look-back period in days (default 30)'. Examples further clarify usage. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Show the highest-spending AWS accounts in the organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_org_cost_summary' or 'get_top_cost_drivers' by focusing on accounts, not overall costs or drivers.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a Team plan (org_reports)') and provides example queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cost_summary_all_accounts' or 'get_top_cost_drivers'. The examples give implicit context but lack direct comparison.

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