get_account_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the fail-closed behavior with the specific 502 error code, exactly what withdrawable means, that it never goes negative, and importantly instructs not to misinterpret the error as an empty account—rich and specific behavioral context.

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?

Every sentence carries unique information: what the tool returns, how it differs from get_balance, the withdrawable definition, error semantics, retry behavior, and the credential requirement. It is dense but not redundant; the length is justified by the behavioral richness.

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, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It covers the purpose, return semantics, error conditions, proper handling, and authentication requirements. There are no undocumented input fields to worry about and the sibling context clarifies its niche relative to get_balance and other account tools.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaning by explaining the output fields (equity, margin usage, PnL rollup, withdrawable), which helps beyond schema since no parameter details are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the authenticated account's portfolio summary (equity, margin usage, PnL rollup)" — this clearly states what the tool does. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_balance by calling itself "a richer view", making it easy to differentiate.

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 names get_balance as an alternative and positions this tool as the richer option, giving clear context for when to choose it. It also includes actionable guidance such as requiring API credentials and advising a retry after a delay on 502, though it stops short of a fully explicit when-not-to-use list.

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