lemma_list_entity_mail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that checks are included and that amounts are in cents with '*_dollars' annotated, but it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or the overall response structure.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the most decision-relevant detail about checks and amount units. Every word contributes value.

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 list operation with well-described parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and a key part of the return payload (checks and amount formatting). It is somewhat light on response shape since there is no output schema, but the main invocation context is sufficiently clear.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, and date parameters. The description adds meaning mainly for entity_id by tying it to 'received for an entity' and clarifies the output's check amounts, but it does not significantly deepen parameter semantics 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('lockbox mail received for an entity'), and adds a key output detail about checks. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like lemma_list_check_deposits.

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 implies usage for retrieving an entity's lockbox mail and associated checks, which gives clear context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_check_deposits or list_remittances, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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