get_account_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses credential requirements, the exact failure mode (502 `authoritative_margin_unavailable`), the retry behavior, and a critical interpretation warning ('do NOT read the error as a flat or empty account'). It also explains the semantics of `withdrawable` (authoritative free margin, floored at zero, never negative).

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 deprecation notice and primary purpose are front-loaded, which is correct. The `withdrawable` explanation runs long across two sentences and could be tightened, but every sentence carries substantive information rather than filler.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It covers auth, failure mode, and key returned fields well, but a tool returning a portfolio summary without an output schema could benefit from a fuller enumeration of the response shape.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the returned `withdrawable` field, though that is return-value rather than parameter semantics.

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+resource (get the authenticated account's portfolio summary) and enumerates the content (equity, margin usage, PnL rollup). It explicitly positions itself against two siblings, naming `fetch_account_summary` as the replacement and `fetch_balance` as the narrower alternative.

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?

Front-loads 'Deprecated: use `fetch_account_summary`', which is an unambiguous when-not-to-use directive, and explains why one might still pick this over `fetch_balance` (richer view including `withdrawable`). Nothing is left to inference about tool selection.

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