nessie_list_withdrawals

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety. The description adds a non-obvious data limitation—no credit limit exists in Nessie account data, so credit utilization cannot be calculated—which is useful context beyond structured fields. 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 core action is front-loaded and the total length is short. However, the standalone 'Read-only.' sentence simply repeats the readOnlyHint annotation and could be removed without loss, preventing a perfect score.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool, the description, schema, and annotations are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Return format and pagination are not mentioned, but the low complexity and fully documented accountId make this a minor gap.

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 single required accountId is fully documented in the schema, including that it is an opaque string. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond saying 'one account,' so it meets the schema-coverage baseline of 3.

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'), names the resource ('withdrawals'), and constrains scope to 'one Nessie account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deposits, list_bills, and 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?

It gives clear context: withdrawals are scoped to a single account, the operation is read-only, and the data cannot be used to calculate credit utilization. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for broader transaction queries, so it stops short of a 5.

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