get_liabilities_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful platform limitation (Plaid-only, Teller unsupported), but it does not mention side effects, failure behavior for unsupported connections, or whether a linked account is required.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the platform constraint is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the data returned and the key platform limitation. The main gap is that, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent must infer the exact return shape and error behavior for unsupported providers.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this completely, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The description appropriately focuses on what data will be returned.

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 identifies the resource as liabilities and enumerates the included data (APRs, balances, due dates), which pairs clearly with the 'get' verb in the tool name. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_balances_tool or get_holdings_tool, though it does not explicitly state an action such as 'Retrieves...'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The 'Plaid-only — Teller has no LIABILITIES capability' note implies a constraint, but it does not tell an agent when to prefer this tool over related siblings like list_accounts_tool, get_balances_tool, or summarize_debt_tool.

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