infomaniak_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Returns a summary' is consistent and adds little. It does add context about scope ('all organizations and products you have access to'), but it does not disclose potential latency, pagination, or other behavioral nuances. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the core function and a usage recommendation. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is an overview with a simple interface, good annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the lack of any explanation for the optional 'account_id' parameter is a noticeable gap, preventing a perfect score. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'account_id' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description entirely omits this parameter, leaving the agent to guess whether passing an account_id filters the summary or is otherwise relevant. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'Returns a summary of all Infomaniak organizations and products you have access to,' specifying both the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('summary of all organizations and products'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'infomaniak_list_organizations' which likely only list organizations, and the added 'Best called first in a session' reinforces its role as a high-level overview.

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 phrase 'Best called first in a session' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool as a starting point. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the 'first in a session' recommendation implies it should precede more specific tools, which is useful direction.

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