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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization model ('Company-scoped + membership-authorized'), which tells the agent the caller must be a company member. It does not, however, describe pagination behavior despite exposing pageSize/pageToken.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the scoping and auth caveats; no filler. 'MCP-exposed (read-only)' is mildly redundant against the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is brief.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and scope/authorization are covered. The noticeable gap is pagination: two of the four parameters (pageSize, pageToken) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without guidance on paging through results.

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 carries the full burden for four parameters. It gestures at companyId ('company-scoped') and counterpartyId ('narrowed to one counterparty'), but says nothing about pageSize or pageToken semantics (max 100, opaque token) and adds no format or pagination guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('returns a company's registered destinations'), clarifies scope ('company-scoped') and notes the optional counterparty narrowing. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from (e.g., counterparty_get_list_counterparties), but the scope language is clear enough to distinguish a recipient listing from a counterparty listing.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'this is what a send-money picker enumerates' tells the agent this is for picking payout destinations, and 'optionally narrowed to one counterparty' gives a filter condition. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or named alternative sibling is provided.

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