List Payments Beneficiaries

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions pagination control via page and per_page, response format as a paginated JSON array, and inclusion of pagination metadata. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, so the description supplements with pagination behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance, parameter details, and reference to the Procore API. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool (list beneficiaries with pagination) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers input parameters (company_id, page, per_page), output format (paginated JSON array), and usage context (enumeration, find IDs, filtering). It also includes a reference to the Procore API endpoint. It is slightly lacking in error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description states 'Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata,' which reinforces the schema but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'payments beneficiaries', and the scope 'for a given company'. It also provides specific use cases: enumeration, paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering by query parameters. This distinguishes it from other list tools by specifying the resource and purpose.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Payments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives (e.g., search_calls_extensive-like sibling). The context implies enumeration needs, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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