get_account_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: amounts are USD decimal strings, charges are positive, payments and aid are negative, and data is grouped by fiscal year. This helps the agent interpret the result correctly.

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 tight and well-structured: purpose first, then use conditions, then data format details. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

With an output schema present and only one optional boolean parameter, the description covers most operational context: what the tool returns, when to use it, and how values are signed. The only notable gap is the undocumented force_refresh parameter.

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 0% and the description does not mention the force_refresh parameter at all. The parameter's name and default give some hint, but the behavior and consequences of setting it to true are left entirely to inference. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate and does not.

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 identifies the tool as a student account ledger and enumerates its contents (tuition, fees, housing, grants, loans, payments, running balance). It also gives explicit call intent, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even though it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this when the user asks about their bill, balance, charges, payments, or financial aid disbursements.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with financial account activity.

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