Reports: Get Account reports summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: authentication via User API key in the api-access-token header, the HTTP endpoint, and multilingual digit handling. It does not cover return format or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the tool purpose, then endpoint and auth details. It remains reasonably tight, though the multilingual text/digit note is somewhat specialized and could be trimmed if not broadly relevant.

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 read-only summary endpoint with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, auth, and endpoint. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the shape or contents of the returned summary totals, leaving a notable gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only restates the report type and date range concepts without adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (summary report totals for a report type and date range), which distinguishes it from the sibling gapify_get_account_reports. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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: use this when you need summary totals for a given report type and date range. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to the detailed-report sibling gapify_get_account_reports, so it remains only implied.

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