get_account_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the basic operation, missing context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, data details) earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what data is returned but does not cover format, structure, or potential limitations. For a read-only tool with no structured output, more context on behavior or response details would enhance completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the output semantics (what data is returned). This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids redundancy.

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 specific action ('Get an overview') and resource ('Xfinity account'), listing the exact data returned (current plan, account balance, due date, service summary). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_bill_history' or 'get_usage_details' by providing a comprehensive summary rather than detailed historical or granular data.

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 context by specifying what information is retrieved, suggesting it's for general account status checks rather than specific actions like paying bills or checking outages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., 'get_bill_history' for past bills) or any prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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