get_account_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: AT&T login credentials are required. The action 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't detail error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid credentials.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no filler. The second sentence adds the prerequisite efficiently, making the description 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, included summary contents, and the auth prerequisite. It lacks usage guidance and return format details, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with username and password already described. The description's mention of 'AT&T login credentials' simply reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it retrieves a summary of the AT&T account, listing specific contents (current plan, balance due, usage summary). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_usage_details and get_bill_history, which target narrower aspects.

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 for obtaining an overall account summary but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like get_usage_details or get_bill_history. The prerequisite (requires AT&T login credentials) is mentioned but not as a usage guideline.

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