ck_get_account_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds the meaningful fact that results are aggregated per account into debit/credit/net figures rather than raw transactions. It omits any mention that the optional start_date/end_date bound the aggregation or what the default period is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the output shape (per-account debit/credit/net) leads immediately. It is appropriately sized for a two-optional-parameter read tool, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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 takes on responsibility for conveying what comes back, and it does so at a high level. However, for an aggregation tool with date-range parameters it should say whether the range filters the aggregation and what happens when the range is omitted.

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% (both params documented as YYYY-MM-DD), so the schema carries parameter semantics and the baseline is 3. The description never mentions that these totals are date-filterable at all, adding no meaning beyond the 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?

Names a specific verb (Return) and a precisely scoped resource: per-account debit, credit, and net totals. This is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as ck_get_account_balances or ck_get_spending_by_category, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is for reconciliation, reporting, or a date-bounded period, and no alternative (balances, spending-by-category, query_sql) is named or excluded. The agent is left to guess between several plausible sibling tools.

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