get_account_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the tool returns a summary (total emails, unread count, mailbox breakdown) but does not disclose that it is read-only, requires no parameters, or any authorization needs. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get an aggregate account summary') and lists key output components. Every word is necessary; there is no wasted text.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (context indicates true), the description is reasonably complete. It states the nature of the output, though the full output schema may define additional fields. The description suffices for a simple read operation.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, the baseline score is 4 when there are zero parameters. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 an aggregate account summary with specific fields (total emails, unread count, mailbox breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual emails or mailboxes, such as get_mailbox_stats, which is per-mailbox rather than account-level.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_mailbox_stats could be confused for similar functionality, but no contrast is offered. The usage context is only implied by the description of the output.

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