list_account_nicknames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what response format is returned, or how edge cases (e.g., no nicknames exist) are handled. The word 'List' implies a read, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, clean sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the object ('human-friendly nicknames'). There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return shape. The description indicates it lists nicknames but does not specify whether it returns an array of nicknames, a mapping from account_ids to nicknames, or what happens when no nicknames exist. This is a moderate gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description clarifies what the tool lists without referencing parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'human-friendly nicknames for Plaid account_ids,' making the tool's function immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'upsert_account_nickname', which handles creating/updating nicknames rather than reading them.

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 the tool is for retrieving nicknames, and the presence of sibling tools like 'upsert_account_nickname' suggests when to use this read operation versus a write operation. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, so it falls 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.