nessie_list_deposits

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. The description adds a valuable domain caveat that Nessie account data lacks credit-limit information, preventing misuse for credit-utilization calculations. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and a useful caveat after it. There is no filler or redundant explanation; every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, the description is complete. The scope is clear, the return is implied by 'List deposits,' and the added domain caveat covers a likely misuse.

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 schema fully documents accountId at 100% coverage, including its opaque-string nature and the warning not to assume format or length. The description does not need to add parameter details; the 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 ('List'), a clear resource ('deposits'), and a specific scope ('one Nessie account'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nessie_list_withdrawals, nessie_list_bills, and nessie_list_loans, so an agent knows exactly what it does.

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 read-only context explicit and provides a clear when-not-to-use signal: credit utilization cannot be calculated from Nessie account data. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource-specific wording makes the intended use obvious.

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