direct_account_summary

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

The description discloses that the operation is READ-ONLY, which is a key safety behavior, and it mentions the optional last-N-days cost calculation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not describe the response format, potential errors, or any operational constraints. The READ-ONLY label adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the missing annotation context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with READ-ONLY. It contains no filler words, and every phrase adds essential information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 summary with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential behavior and output content (counts by project/state and optional cost). However, without an output schema, it does not detail the response structure, and the term 'cabinet' is not explained, leaving a minor gap for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 description explains the 'days' parameter as 'optional last-N-days cost', providing meaning that the schema lacks (coverage 0%). It clarifies that days is optional and tied to cost calculation, which is useful for invoking the tool correctly. The schema's min/max constraints further supplement this semantic understanding.

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 what the tool does: it produces a short cabinet summary with counts by project/state and optionally includes last-N-days cost. The READ-ONLY label further distinguishes it from mutating sibling tools, and the specific resource scope (counts by project/state) differentiates it from other reporting 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention other reporting or summary tools, nor does it provide exclusions or recommended use cases beyond the implied 'short summary' nature. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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