ck_get_account_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Return' phrasing is consistent with that. The description adds the per-account grouping context but does not disclose behavioral details like date-range handling, account coverage, or result limitations.

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, tightly written sentence that leads with the action and the output scope. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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, read-only aggregate tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states what the tool returns, though it could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that results are filtered by the optional date range.

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 both start_date and end_date documented as YYYY-MM-DD strings. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource (account summary), and specifies the exact output shape (per-account debit, credit, and net totals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling transaction-list and spending-breakdown tools.

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 implies the tool is for account-level aggregate totals, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the sibling transaction or spending tools. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, though the intended use is reasonably inferable.

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