get_mercury_panel

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds only the fact that it wraps 'NBAPI GetMercuryPanel,' which gives the agent no actionable behavior. No error modes, response shape, or lookup-failure behavior is disclosed, so it contributes little beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the verb+resource+identifier scope come first and nothing is restated.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is adequate: the agent knows what it takes and roughly what it gets. It would be complete at 5 if it hinted at the returned detail or how a missing key behaves, but that is a minor gap.

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 100% and the single MERCURYKEY parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the discovery hint for get_mercury_panels. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating the key requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns the details') and resource ('a single Mercury panel'), and the qualifier 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_mercury_panels. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you need details of one panel and already hold its key. There is no explicit statement of when this is preferable to get_mercury_panels, though the schema's parameter text ('Use get_mercury_panels to discover keys') partially compensates.

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