list_funds

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns all funds (no filtering), data is small and rarely-changing, and results are cached per session. This explains idempotency and performance traits, though it omits specifics like return format or authentication needs.

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 only two sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second adds behavioral context (caching, data size). It is front-loaded and contains no redundancy or filler 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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and caching but does not specify the return structure or indicate whether it returns a list of fund objects. Without an output schema, the agent might need more details about the response format to use the tool confidently.

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 single parameter 'verbose' is fully described in the input schema with clear explanation ('Return the full, untrimmed LGL object instead of the compact summary'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 funds configured in LGL' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds useful context about the data being small and rarely-changing, distinguishing it from other list tools for different entities (e.g., list_appeals, list_gift_categories).

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 implicitly guides usage by noting the data is cached for the session after the first call, suggesting efficiency and infrequent need to re-call. It does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a simple reference data list.

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