nessie_list_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific caveat that Nessie account data has no credit limit and credit utilization cannot be calculated, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any 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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope directly; the second adds a pertinent caveat. No wasted words, and the key 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, list operation) and the annotations already cover safety. The description includes the essential purpose and an important limitation. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 customerId parameter is well-documented in the schema (opaque string, do not assume format). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'List' with the resource 'accounts' and scope 'owned by one Nessie customer,' which makes it distinct from sibling listing tools like list_deposits or list_withdrawals. It also adds a read-only qualifier and a caveat about credit limits, further specifying the tool's purpose.

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 implies use when you need all accounts of a specific customer, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_account for a single account) or when not to use it. The credit-limit note hints at a limitation but does not provide clear selection guidance.

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