instance_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses caching behavior (cached per instance, keyed on live client not environment variable), performance characteristics (first call costs ~1 second, subsequent calls free), and a detailed edge case about instance misidentification when `ODOO_DB` is unset. It also reveals that the report carries a timestamp. The only gap is that it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects beyond building the cache.

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 a summary sentence, which is good. However, the explanation of the caching edge case, while valuable, is verbose and could be tightened. It runs to several paragraphs where two well-structured paragraphs might suffice. Every sentence earns its place in terms of content, but the prose could be more compact.

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 complexity of this tool (caching behavior, potential for misidentification, performance profile, drill-down rules) and the richness of the output schema (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the description covers all necessary ground: what it does, how the cache works, when to refresh, and how to interpret numbers. The output schema likely documents the return shape, so no further explanation is needed there. This is a complete, self-contained description.

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 single parameter `refresh` has 0% schema description coverage (the schema provides only type and default), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: it explains that `refresh=True` rebuilds the profile from the instance instead of reusing the cache, and implicitly clarifies the default behavior (cached reuse). This adds far more meaning than the bare schema provides.

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 clear verb ('Summarise') and specifies the resource ('connected instance') along with a detailed list of what it covers: version, companies, volumes per area, in-house modules, anomalies. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like 'explore_module' or 'search_read', which operate on different scopes.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (anytime you need an overview of the connected instance) and provides crucial contextual advice: use `refresh=True` after the instance changes, and mentions the cost profile (first call is expensive, subsequent calls free). It also gives rules for drilling into figures (filter `account.move` by `move_type`, sum `amount_total_signed`). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the given siblings.

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