list_counterparties

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=true. It does not disclose what the list contains (e.g., all or filtered), any ordering, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description could still add value but does not.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). However, it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it could be structured better with additional context.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., fields, format, ordering). It only states counterparties are listed, leaving agents to guess the return structure. For a list tool, this is insufficient.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information, but a brief note confirming no parameters are needed would improve clarity. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 it lists saved counterparties (payment recipients), matching the tool's name. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with accounts, balance, payments, etc. However, it lacks an explicit verb and could more precisely indicate scope (e.g., 'list all').

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of whether it's a read operation (though annotations indicate readOnlyHint), nor any prerequisites or context for use.

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