investec_pb_list_beneficiaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'list' which implies a safe read operation, but does not disclose details like whether the list includes pending beneficiaries, if any caching is involved, or what 'global' means across profiles. Minimal transparency beyond the action.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does—list all global beneficiaries—and no additional context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for no 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 clearly states 'List all global beneficiaries' with a specific verb (list) and resource (global beneficiaries), and the name includes 'list_beneficiaries', which is transparent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like investec_pb_list_beneficiary_categories and investec_pb_list_profile_account_beneficiaries.

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 'List all global beneficiaries defined on the user's online banking profile' implies a simple read operation used when needing a complete list of global beneficiaries. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names indicate more specialized beneficiary lists exist.

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