get_credit_card_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that available invoices, due dates, and payments are returned, and that historical invoices are not summed as debt. This is useful and non-contradictory.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main content and includes a key behavioral caveat without waste. It could be more structured, but it earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the core behavior is stated. However, the description lacks routing guidance relative to sibling tools and provides no parameter context. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the account_ids parameter at all. While the parameter is optional and its name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage or clarify how account filtering affects the summary.

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 the resource (credit card summary) and its contents: invoices, due dates, and payments. It also adds a distinguishing caveat about not summing historical invoices as debt, which separates it somewhat from siblings like list_credit_card_bills. However, it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name for the action.

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 usage by stating what is returned, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_credit_card_bill or list_credit_card_bills. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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