List native-L1 custody paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'current' and 'product-level', but does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or completeness (though openWorldHint suggests possible incompleteness). No contradiction exists.

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 concise sentence with front-loaded verb and clear scope. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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, the description covers the core purpose and scope, and the output schema supplies return structure. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and lack of explicit differentiation from several similar list tools in the sibling set leaves gaps that a fuller description could address.

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% and the description does not mention the 'status' or 'provider' parameters at all. The agent gets no guidance on how these parameters filter results or what values like 'available' mean. The enum values are present but lack explanation, and the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('custody evidence') with a clear scope qualifier ('for direct native-L1 participation only'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_bonds or list_bond_participation_routes by explicitly narrowing to native-L1 direct participation.

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 phrase 'direct native-L1 participation only' implies when to use this tool (direct native-L1 custody) and implicitly excludes other participation types, but no explicit alternatives are named. There is no direct 'use X instead' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some ambiguity among many sibling list tools.

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