athena_credit_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Summarize', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention output format, filtering behavior, stability, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it safely.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks additional structural elements like parameter highlights or examples that would enhance clarity.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'persisted intervention credit' means, what 'causal-confidence history' includes, how parameters affect results, or what the return value looks like. The agent would be left guessing.

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 coverage is 0% with three optional parameters (limit, regime, intervention_id) that lack descriptions. The description does not explain how these parameters relate to the summary; it only vaguely hints at 'intervention credit' which may correspond to intervention_id, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('persisted intervention credit and causal-confidence history'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling summary tools like athena_delayed_credit_summary, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_credit_assign or athena_delayed_credit_summary. The description implies a read/summary operation but offers no exclusions or context about suitable scenarios.

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