brc_list_nominal_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'lists', which gives no insight into behavior such as pagination (top, page, skip, pageSize parameters), filtering (filter parameter), or ordering (orderBy). The description adds no value beyond the tool name for behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and critical context like required companyName, it is under-specifying. It trades brevity for completeness.

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?

The description lacks context such as what a nominal account is, the return format, pagination behavior, or how to use the filtering/ordering capabilities. With no output schema and complex query parameters, the description is too sparse to be complete for an agent.

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 coverage is only 43%, meaning 3 of 7 parameters (companyName, filter, orderBy) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter, such as the required 'companyName' or pagination controls. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('BRC nominal accounts'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'brc_list_accounts', which might also list accounts but of a different type. The tool name already hints at nominal accounts, so the description is helpful but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other list tools like 'brc_list_accounts' or 'brc_list_customers'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is purely functional without any usage recommendations.

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