get_mercury_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens for an invalid key. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 one compact sentence that states the action, the resource, the input, and the underlying API wrapper. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the definition provides the essential information: what it returns, what input is needed, and how to find that input via a sibling tool. It does not describe the response shape or edge-case behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this 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 MERCURYKEY parameter is already well documented in the schema as required and as the key to retrieve. The main description only restates 'for a given MERCURYKEY' and adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and specific resource ('details of a single Mercury panel'), and the word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_mercury_panels. Mentioning that it wraps NBAPI GetMercuryPanel adds useful provenance.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving one panel by MERCURYKEY, and the parameter description explicitly tells the agent to use get_mercury_panels to discover keys. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or comparison to other single-resource getters, but the intended usage is clear.

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