List saved beneficiaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the sort order (most recently paid first) and the cross-tool workflow contract tying results to create_transfer's destinationType.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The resource and ordering come first, and the actionable hook into create_transfer is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description implies the key returned field (beneficiaryId) and the ordering, and the schema fully covers filtering and pagination. It could mention that results are paginated or how archived entries behave, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter (search, status, network, currency, pageSize, pageToken) is documented in-schema including defaults and enum behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (organisation's saved beneficiaries) plus the ordering semantic (most recently paid first). This clearly separates it from get_beneficiary (single lookup) and create_beneficiary (mutation) among the siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit downstream use case: find the beneficiaryId that create_transfer needs with destinationType 'beneficiary'. It does not state when to prefer get_beneficiary or archive_beneficiary instead, so no true exclusions are given.

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