get_account_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'this tool never exposes direct PII', which is valuable privacy context. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether it requires specific permissions, handles missing accounts, or returns errors. The single disclosed trait is important but not comprehensive.

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 front-loads the primary action and object, then adds a meaningful privacy qualifier. It is appropriately short and contains no filler, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be extensive. Still, it leaves gaps: no mention of what the summary contains, how to interpret the response, or typical usage scenarios. While not critical for a trivial read operation, the lack of any usage guidance and return format means an agent may not fully understand the tool's output.

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 zero parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description does not mention the 'account_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which partially compensates, but the description adds no semantic detail about its format, scope, or expected values. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated but did 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 action ('Return') and the resource ('account summary'), and adds the qualifier 'minimized' to distinguish it from a full account detail. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the siblings (get_case, request_account_freeze) are sufficiently different in name and purpose that an agent can distinguish without explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only says it returns a summary, implying it is for summary needs, but does not mention when to prefer it over get_case or request_account_freeze, or when not to use it.

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