Get dashboard summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is established. The description adds useful context by naming the metrics included and scoping them to a date range, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or optional organization scoping, making the added behavioral value modest.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's scope and contents, and the second provides actionable selection guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Combined with the full schema coverage and safe read-only annotations, the description gives an agent enough context to decide when to call this tool and what it will cover. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit metric list, though a precise response structure is not described.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters: ISO 8601 dates and an optional organization id. The description only reinforces the date-range concept and adds no format, default, or dependency details beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 a specific aggregate resource scoped to a date range and enumerates the included components: totals by network, plan usage, unread messages, accounts in error, and failed posts. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', the intent is unambiguous and the content list distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools.

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 second sentence explicitly labels this as the call for 'how did this month go?' and instructs the agent to prefer it over stitching several tools together. It does not spell out when to use narrower alternatives like get_plan_use or get_unread_counts, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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