List a bond's participation routes

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by detailing the types of routes returned, which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradictions or missing safety disclosures are apparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every phrase adds meaningful detail without redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

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 read-only list tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what routes are returned. It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but the low complexity and annotations make it adequately complete for selection and 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 schema provides no description for bondId (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly define the parameter. However, the name and usage ('under one bond') make the meaning obvious, so it partially compensates but still leaves format or identifier semantics unspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: participation routes under one bond. It explicitly distinguishes the scope ('under one bond') and enumerates route types (direct native-L1, approved pool, registry-published LST capability), differentiating it from sibling list tools like list_bonds.

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 when needing routes for a specific bond, which is clear enough for selection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the scope is unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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