List Customer Offramp Wallets

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain meaning (what an offramp wallet is) and the required two-ID scoping, but says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or whether wallets are filtered by bank account or customer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the parameter block and return type in a few lines with no filler. The Args section largely duplicates the schema, which is the only small inefficiency.

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 two-param read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the return shape ('array of offramp_wallets'). It is nearly complete; the only gap is the absence of any note on pagination or result limits.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description merely restates them as 'the customer id' and 'the bank account id'. It adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('List a customer's offramp wallets') and adds a clarifying gloss that these are crypto settlement wallets tied to a bank account. It implicitly contrasts with the custodial-wallet siblings by naming the resource type, but never draws that distinction explicitly.

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 scoping ('for a bank account') implies when to reach for this list rather than a generic wallet list, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not route the agent to ashar_get_customer_offramp_wallet for a single record or distinguish this from ashar_list_customer_custodial_wallets.

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