holded_list_treasuries

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a non-destructive listing of all configured treasury accounts, which is minimally transparent. However, it does not mention pagination, permissions, error behavior, or output shape, though these are less critical for a parameterless list tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation, the object, and examples of what counts as a treasury account. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing operation, the description is adequate: an agent knows what the tool returns conceptually and that no arguments are needed. The lack of an output schema and absence of any mention of returned fields is a minor gap, but the low complexity keeps the description mostly complete.

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 schema properties are empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description's 'todas' reinforces the unbounded scope, matching the parameterless design. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('cuentas de tesorería'), with useful examples (bancos, cajas) that clarify the domain. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling holded_list_accounts, but the treasury-account scope is specific enough to avoid serious confusion.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as holded_list_accounts or holded_list_daily_ledger. It only states what it lists, leaving selection decisions to the agent without supporting context.

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