nessie_get_account

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Read-only' repeats that. However, it adds valuable domain context beyond the annotations: Nessie account data provides no credit limit, so credit utilization cannot be calculated from it. This helps an agent avoid misusing the data.

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: the first states the operation and input, the second adds an essential domain caveat. There is no filler, 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, read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It even includes a meaningful limitation that is not visible from the schema. A brief note on the return shape would make it fully self-contained, but the low complexity makes that non-critical.

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 only parameter, accountId, is already fully described in the schema as an opaque string id with no assumed format or length. The tool description repeats 'opaque account id' without adding new semantic information, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Nessie account by opaque account id.' This clearly distinguishes it from nessie_list_accounts (one vs. list) and other siblings like nessie_get_customer or nessie_get_transactions.

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 the usage context obvious: use this tool when you have an opaque account id and need that single account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or excluding conditions, but the singular scope and id-based retrieval are clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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