lemma_list_external_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that this is a read-only enumeration of approved external destinations. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but 'List' plus the restriction statement is reasonably transparent for this simple 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?

Two short sentences, with the primary action ('List saved recipients') front-loaded and the critical constraint in the second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 simple list tool with a clear schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the entity scope, the resource type, and the operational purpose. It does not state how returned accounts map to move_money_externally, but that is not required for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning to entity_id by tying it to 'an entity' and explains that results are saved recipients/destinations. The limit and cursor parameters are already well documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('saved recipients (external bank accounts)'), and an entity scope. The second sentence differentiates it from generic account listing by emphasizing these are the only allowed destinations for external transfers.

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?

Provides clear context: these accounts are the permitted destinations for external transfers, so an agent knows this is the tool to call when gathering external transfer recipients. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_external_account or list_bank_accounts, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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