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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: company-scoped results, membership authorization, and the one-to-many counterparty-to-recipient relationship. The prose repeats read-only but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core behavior and use case. The final read-only note largely duplicates the annotation, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape details are not required. The description covers purpose, optional filtering, scope, authorization, and intended use; only pagination behavior and the relationship between companyId and auth-derived scoping are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the company scope and optional counterparty narrowing, but pageSize and pageToken semantics are left to inference from their names and constraints.

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 and resource: returns a company's registered destinations, optionally filtered by counterparty. The send-money picker reference and 'registered destinations' wording clearly distinguish it from generic account/counterparty listers.

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 a clear use context: one counterparty may have many recipients, so this is what a send-money picker enumerates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended selection context is clear.

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