get_pim_state_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the comparison concept, not additional behavioral details like how the summary is computed or whether it reflects current tenant state.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and output.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough context to understand the returned comparison. It could be slightly more explicit about whether it returns counts, lists, or a ratio, but the absence of inputs and presence of annotations reduce the need for more detail.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any input semantics. It still adds value by stating the comparison categories that define the output scope.

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 names a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('comparativo de estados PIM'), and spells out the exact categories compared (Active vs Eligible vs Permanent). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_pim_role_states, which is about listing states rather than producing a comparison.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a PIM state comparison summary. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_pim_role_states or pim_natural_language_query.

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