mercury_list_recipients

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return format and the nature of recipients (counterparties for outbound payments). However, it does not mention pagination or rate limits, which would be relevant for a list endpoint.

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?

Extremely concise with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what output to expect. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (baseline 4). Description adds context by describing the return structure, which adds value beyond the 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'payment recipients', and distinguishes from sibling `mercury_list_customers` by explaining the different scope (bank-payment counterparties vs. AR customers).

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?

Explicitly includes 'USE WHEN' (enumerating recipients before sending money) and 'DO NOT USE' (for AR customers, pointing to `mercury_list_customers`), providing clear context and alternatives.

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