Get account dashboard summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only,' adding no new behavioral information. It does disclose the exact content returned, which is useful context, but does not go beyond what annotations provide regarding safety or idempotency. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds marginal value here.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get your dashboard summary') and then lists the specific fields. It is efficient, with every item adding value. However, the enumeration is somewhat long and could be structured into a bulleted list for readability, but it remains clear and concise for a definition.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description bears the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists all key dashboard components explicitly, making it complete for a simple read-only getter. It does not mention error conditions or data formatting, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity, and annotations already cover idempotency and read-only behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter explanations to add. With schema coverage trivially at 100% and no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not mention any inputs, which is correct for a no-argument getter.

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 the tool retrieves the account dashboard summary and enumerates the specific data included (account status, subscription, service dates, addresses, environmental impact). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account (which likely focuses on account details only) and list_upcoming_services (which focuses on service dates). The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'dashboard' is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use it—when you need an overall dashboard summary—but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_account or list_upcoming_services. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the tool's scope from the listed fields. Given the rich sibling set, explicit routing would be helpful, but the description provides enough context for a reasonable choice.

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