nessie_list_loans

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

Beyond the annotations' read-only hint, the description adds important behavioral context: the credit_score is a static on-file value, not a live credit-bureau feed, and Nessie account data cannot support credit utilization calculations. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting loan fields as real-time financial 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?

Three compact sentences lead with the core purpose, then add only high-value caveats. No filler or redundant schema restatement; every sentence 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 single-parameter, read-only list tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, the required account context, and the meaning of its loan fields. No output schema exists, but the description adequately supports correct invocation without needing to detail return values.

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 coverage is 100%, and the accountId parameter is already documented as an opaque string with no format assumptions. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies 'one Nessie account', but it does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('loans') scoped to 'one Nessie account', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list deposits, withdrawals, bills, or accounts. The loan-focused resource is unambiguous and an agent can choose this tool without opening the schema.

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 clear: it lists loans for a single, specified Nessie account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the tool's scope is sufficiently clear given the sibling set contains no other loan-listing tool.

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