list_treasury

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that pagination is transparently handled ('Every page is walked') and describes the returned data (balances, status, monthly net returns). These details clarify observable behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action and output, the second sentence provides routing to siblings, and the third conveys pagination behavior. Each sentence contributes distinct value with no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to elaborate on return formats. It covers the scope (one organization), the differentiation from `list_accounts`, the consumer tools that rely on its ids, and pagination behavior. An agent receives all necessary information to invoke this tool correctly without needing to inspect additional resources.

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 schema for the sole parameter `entity` is fully documented (100% coverage) with an explanation that it is the exact `entity` key from `list_entities`, not the display name, and that it is required with no default. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it satisfies the baseline for full schema coverage but does not go further.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List one organization's treasury accounts' with the output fields ('balances, status, and monthly net returns'). It also distinguishes itself from closely related siblings by explicitly naming `list_accounts` as the alternative for checking/savings, and by noting that `list_treasury_transactions` and `list_treasury_statements` consume the ids produced here. This makes the purpose clear and disambiguates it from the sibling set.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for treasury account ids' and directs the agent to `list_accounts` for checking and savings accounts. It also mentions a notable aspect of usage—'Every page is walked'—informing the agent that pagination is automatically handled. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended invocation context.

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