nexus_get_endorsements

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

Annotations already establish that the call is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it returns a JSON array and enumerating the exact response fields, including the status enum. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact lines plus a structured return contract. Every sentence contributes information, and the return format is cleanly separated. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-only endpoint with strong annotations and a documented return shape, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, the scope ('authenticated account'), and the possible status values. No additional operational details are necessary for correct invocation.

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, so the schema needs no additional explanation and the description has no parameter semantics to provide. The baseline of 4 for a parameter-less tool 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the authenticated account's endorsement history'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexus_get_mod_endorsers (which lists endorsers for a mod) and nexus_endorse_mod (which creates or changes an endorsement).

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 clearly frames this as the tool for retrieving the caller's own endorsement history, which provides strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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