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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the read-only nature through 'Lists' and explains constraints like wallet_fk may not be 0 and account_fk is a database ID, not an address. However, it does not mention pagination, error conditions, or auth requirements beyond the token source, which is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 first sentence 'Lists all beneficiaries on this wallet or on this account' is repeated verbatim, which is redundant and wastes space. The @param structure is clear, but the duplicate opening sentence prevents a higher 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter semantics needed for a list operation. It includes token origin, parameter constraints, and scoping rules. Missing minor details like error handling, but for this complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's source and purpose. It adds critical nuance absent from the schema, such as account_fk being a database ID (not an address) and that setting it to 0 returns wallet-associated beneficiaries. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('beneficiaries'), and it distinguishes scope (wallet or account). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like beneficiary_add/remove as the read operation, despite the tool name making this obvious.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list beneficiaries on a wallet or account. It gives detailed parameter guidance, especially the account_fk=0 case for wallet-level listings, which helps in selecting the right scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude any use cases, 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.